Final Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement

Appendices

ARIZONA PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY

December 2016

Submitted by:

Arizona Department of Transportation

Multimodal Planning Division

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration 

Appendices

 

Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS

Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -1 

Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS

10/30/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cornell Dunning

Due to funding constraints, it is 

unlikely that a complete Tucson-toPhoenix passenger rail system would 

be built initially. Therefore, systemwide analyses and comparison of 

impacts at alternative locations for 

system facilities, such as Rail 

Maintenance Yards, cannot be 

undertaken until a project for an initial 

operable segment has been defined 

and conceptualized. A more detailed 

discussion on this topic appears on 

Page 4.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -2 

With no specific alternative 

alignments developed in the Tier 1 EIS, 

subjects such as Clean Water Act 

Section 404 permitting were discussed 

only in general terms. Based on the

Tier 1 analysis, the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative would appear to provide a 

less environmentally damaging 

alternative alignment than the Orange 

Corridor Alternative; however, FRA 

cannot make that determination at 

this stage. A more detailed discussion 

on this topic begins on Page 5. 

For cost estimating purposes, it was 

assumed that diesel-electric

locomotive technology would be used 

for a theoretical future passenger rail 

system; this, however, does not 

preclude ADOT from exploring other 

means of locomotive power--including 

electrification. Discussion of and 

comparison between various types of 

locomotive technology were not part 

of the Tier 1 analysis. A more detailed 

discussion on this topic appears on 

Page 6. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -3 

Detailed responses begin on Page 4.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -4 

Rail Maintenance Facilities

As funding becomes available, one or 

more operable corridor segments

could be developed as individual 

projects that make up components of 

a complete passenger rail system 

between Tucson and Phoenix. Any 

such section will be required to have 

independent utility with or without 

construction of other sections.

No individual segment of a passenger 

rail system has been identified for 

implementation, but the following 

proposed corridor segments could be 

evaluated as logical, independent 

sections for commuter service. These 

corridor segments could also be 

combined, modified, or revisited in the 

future based on available funding. 

•Tucson to Marana 

•Queen Creek/Santan Valley to 

Phoenix 

•Coolidge to Phoenix 

•Coolidge to Tucson 

•Tucson to Phoenix 

FRA will assess, in a Tier 2 study, 

alternative locations for rail 

maintenance facilities that serve the 

initial corridor section, while 

accommodating the full 120-mile 

corridor proposed to be built in the 

future. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -5 

Aquatic Resources

On a corridor-level scale, the Yellow

Corridor Alternative includes four 

major crossings of waters of the US 

and 1,030 acres of wetlands of which 

550 acres are likely jurisdictional. In 

comparison, the Orange Corridor 

Alternative includes three major 

crossings of water of the US, but also 

1,575 acres of wetlands of which 850 

acres are likely jurisdictional wetlands. 

Water crossings may be bridged to 

potentially avoid direct impacts to 

water crossings, whereas wetlands 

may extend over a broader geographic 

extent and, consequently, be more 

difficult to avoid. In this regard, the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative would 

likely yield the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alignment 

alternative.

However, because the actual ROW 

width would likely be about 200 feet, 

the number of possible alignment 

alternatives within a one-mile-wide 

corridor is great, making avoidance of 

jurisdictional waters of the US more 

feasible. Without defining and 

assessing every practicable alignment, 

it cannot be confirmed that the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative would contain the 

LEDPA. 

While the Tier 1 EIS provides a highlevel overview of existing 

environmental conditions within the 

corridor alternatives, the actual area 

potentially affected by a passenger rail 

facility would be much smaller and 

could potentially avoid impacts to 

local features identified in the EIS. 

Watershed-scale impacts within a 

corridor alternative could be relatively 

constant regardless of alignment, but 

at the Tier 1 level of analysis, when no 

specific project has been designed or 

funded, it is not possible to estimate a 

general watershed-scale impact that

would not vary based on structural 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -6 

requirements of different alignments. 

The information gathered for a Tier 1 

analysis covers a broad area but is not 

intended to provide an in-depth 

analysis. To provide that level of detail 

in a Tier 1 EIS would result in an 

encyclopedic volume, with only a 

fraction of the information gathered 

being necessary to complete a projectlevel EIS for implementation of a 

passenger rail system.

To complete a system-wide, 

landscape-level watershed analysis 

and receive an approved Jurisdictional 

Delineation for the study area would 

require a level of effort that runs 

counter to the intent of a tiered NEPA 

documents. However, opportunities to 

avoid wetlands, floodplains, and 

known waters of the US will be taken, 

to the extent practicable, in the 

development of alternative alignments 

for the subsequent project-specific

analysis.

The subsequent project-specific 

analysis is the appropriate time to 

assess direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts of structural elements, fill, 

roads, transfer stations, power 

stations, and maintenance areas. 

Locomotive Technology

The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor 

Study includes this Tier 1 EIS as well as 

an Alternatives Analysis (AA) report, 

which estimated high-level costs for 

comparison between and among 

alternatives. The AA study, which was 

also a high-level analysis, did not 

estimate costs for electrified 

locomotion, nor did it compare the 

cost of an electrified system to the 

cost of a non-electrified system. In 

addition to the railroad itself, an 

electrified locomotive system would 

entail an additional, parallel
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -7 

infrastructure; i.e., the traction power 

delivery system, resulting in higher 

construction costs per mile overall and 

an increased area of ground 

disturbance.

No technology has been proposed or 

selected in the EIS though relatively 

conservative assumptions have been 

made about the performance of a 

future system to forecast ridership 

and estimate costs. In a subsequent 

phase of study, such as a projectspecific NEPA document along with 

supporting analyses, a technology 

would be evaluated based on the best 

fit for the corridor and in 

consideration of costs and ridership 

potential.

Air Quality

FRA will consult with EPA early in the

air quality analysis during subsequent 

project-specific studies to be certain 

that current conditions, 

methodologies, and standards are 

used for the analysis.

Where community air quality impacts 

are anticipated, subsequent 

environmental documentation will 

quantify MSAT emissions and analyze 

health impacts.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -8 

Tribal Consultation

FRA has initiated Section 106 

consultation with potentially affected 

tribes and will continue consultation in 

subsequent project-specific studies. 

Future tribal consultations will include 

requests for permission to further 

study alternatives that cross into tribal 

land.

The Tier 1 EIS provides lists of previous 

projects and known archaeological 

sites within the Yellow and Orange 

corridor alternatives.

During subsequent analyses, when a 

project is in design, principal cultural 

resource issues will be identified along 

with measures to address these issues.

Contaminated Sites

FRA and ADOT will consult with EPA 

and ADEQ early in the project-specific 

studies to identify possible 

contaminated sites to ensure the 

project is designed to accommodate 

specific management needs 

associated with these types of 

facilities or their clean-up activities.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -9 

FRA and ADOT will investigate 

brownfield funding opportunities if 

new development associated with a 

passenger rail alignment crosses or is 

adjacent to brownfields.

Climate Adaptation

When subsequent project-specific 

analyses are undertaken, FRA will 

reference best available science and 

national guidance on climate 

adaptation, including applicable 

actions noted in the National Climate 

Assessment for the Southwest Region.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -10

10/30/2015 U.S. Department of the Interior Patricia 

Sanderson Port

Preferred Alternative

In the Draft Tier 1 EIS, ADOT 

recommended the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative as the preferred 

alternative. FRA identified the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative as the preferred 

alternative in the Final Tier 1 EIS.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -11

Casa Grande Ruins National 

Monument

Because a specific alignment for a 

passenger rail system has not been 

selected, no Area of Potential Effects 

(APE) was delineated during Tier 1 

analysis, nor were specific effect 

findings made. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -12

FRA will coordinate with NPS once 

funding becomes available for project 

design and construction, to identify 

the APE in subsequent, project-specific 

environmental studies and discuss 

avoidance alternatives and the 

potential impacts of noise, vibration, 

and light on the natural and cultural 

landscape within the APE, including 

any National Monuments and National 

Historic Landmarks. 

National Historic Trail

The Juan Bautista de Anza National 

Historic Trail designated historic 

corridor (Anza Trail Corridor) has been 

added to the Corridor Aerial Atlas 

Appendix of the Tier 1 EIS. The 1-milewide rail corridor alternatives in the 

Tier 1 EIS do not define a specific 

alignment, so a detailed analysis of 

potential impacts to the trail corridor 

cannot be undertaken until project 

development (Tier 2) NEPA 

documentation. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -13
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -14

BLM Comments

ADOT and FRA appreciate BLM 

Arizona’s offer to participate as a 

cooperating agency on this study. 

While detailed design for a passenger 

rail facility has not yet taken place, 

commuter trains and intercity trains 

would most likely operate on a single 

set of tracks. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -15

Table L-4 in the Land Use Appendix

indicates general consistency of the 

Corridor Alternatives with land use 

goals and circulation/transportation 

goals of in the general plans of the 

jurisdictions in the corridor 

alternatives. Specific plan 

compatibility and materials sources 

will be addressed during future Tier 2 

analyses when more specific project 

concepts are investigated.

The Anza Trail Corridor is mapped on 

the Corridor Aerial Atlas of the Final 

Tier 1 EIS, as discussed on Page 12.

The BLM parcel along Schnepf Road is 

within or adjacent to the Orange 

Corridor Alternative. FRA has selected 

the Yellow Corridor Alternative as the 

preferred alternative and 

implementation of a passenger rail 

facility within the Yellow Corridor will 

not affect this parcel.

During project-specific analyses, prior 

existing rights on BLM land will be 

investigated and addressed. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -16

Because alignments and station 

locations could hypothetically be 

located anywhere within the milewide corridor alternative, Bureau of 

Land Management subsurface mineral 

estate and mining rights were not 

addressed in this Tier 1 EIS. For the 

same reason, zoning, which varies 

widely within the corridor alternatives, 

and land use impacts were not 

analyzed for any 200-foot ROW 

corridor. When developed, projectlevel NEPA analyses would assess 

impacts on mineral rights, land use, 

and zoning.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -17
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -18
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -19

10/29/2015 Arizona Game and Fish Department Joyce Francis, PhD.

Per AGFD's request, the figure 

illustrating wildlife linkages (Figure 5-

17) has been revised in the Final Tier 1 

EIS to show all of the linkages within 

the map boundaries. A table listing the 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

(SGCN) and Species of Economic and 

Recreational Importance (SERI) within 

the corridor alternatives has been

added to the Biological Resources 

section of the Final Tier 1 EIS. 

The statement appearing on Page 5-

149 of the Draft Tier 1 EIS was clarified 

in the Final Tier 1 EIS to read: "a 

passenger rail system may present 

opportunities to improve wildlife 

connectivity by siting the corridors to 

minimize habitat and connectivity 

fragmentation, identifying current and 

potential important wildlife 

movement areas, and designing

facilities to provide maximum 

permeability for safe wildlife 

movement." 

 

Potential effects to the western 

burrowing owl resulting from 

construction and operation of a 

passenger rail facility are discussed in 

the Final Tier 1 EIS. Because the EIS 

provides a high-level analysis of 

existing conditions and potential 

impact, measures to avoid direct and 

indirect effects to individual species, 

including the burrowing owl, are not 

provided in the Final Tier 1 EIS, nor are 

measures to offset habitat loss 

discussed. Mitigation measures in the 

Final Tier 1 EIS were revised as 

requested.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -20

Under “Tier 2 Considerations,” in the 

Biological Resources section of the 

Final Tier 1 EIS, a sentence has been 

added stating, “For the detailed 

analyses provided in a Tier 2 NEPA 

document, site-specific data on 

biological resources potentially 

affected by the project will be 

required including special status 

species and wildlife movement 

studies/surveys to inform the NEPA 

process.” Specific information about 

which types of studies and their 

timelines relative to the preparation of 

project development and Tier 2 NEPA 

cannot be determined at this time.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -21
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -22

10/28/2015 Arizona Corporation Commission

Safety Division

 Brian H. Lehman

The Arizona Corporation Commission's ("Commission") Railroad Safety Section, ("Staff'), 

would like to take this opportunity to comment on ADOT's Draft Tier I Environmental 

Impact Statement ("EIS") regarding the commuter rail study between Phoenix and 

Tucson. Staff has a long history cooperating with ADOT regarding the implantation of 

safety devices and elimination of safety hazards at grade crossings throughout Arizona. 

However, this is the first instance where Staff has commented on an alignment of a 

proposed commuter rail line. While the Commission's regulatory oversight is focused on 

the implementation of warning devices and the approval of modification or alteration to 

existing or construction of future crossings, whether at-grade or grade separated, Staff 

does have concerns regarding future rail projects in Arizona.

Staff firmly believes that establishing a rail corridor connecting Phoenix and Tucson would 

be an alternative to expanding traffic lanes for vehicular traffic on lnterstate 10 and 

would relieve highway congestion and reduce vehicle emissions. State and regional 

planning initiatives have recommended passenger rail alternatives to add travel capacity 

to what is currently offered by highways. Staff has reviewed the EIS and sees a benefit to 

Arizona from having an alternative to the automobile to travel between Phoenix and 

Tucson. While other modes of transportation were taken into consideration, such as 

express buses, the concept of a commuter train offers significant advantages. The ability 

to construct additional lanes on Interstate 10 is limited. Air travel was not considered 

because Staff believes suburban and rural areas between Phoenix and Tucson need to be 

connected.

The EIS was completed by the lead agency, the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") 

along with cooperating federal agencies, the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") and 

the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"). ADOT is the local sponsoring agency and 

the designated recipient of study funds. The EIS offers three different alternatives which 

include "The Orange Alternative", "The Yellow Alternative" and the ‘No Build Alternative". 

The Orange and the Yellow alternatives offer two different alignments for a rail corridor 

between Phoenix and Tucson, while the No Build Alternative would do nothing to 

implement a rail alternative. The estimated cost for the Orange Alternative is $6.8-$8.4 

billion in 2013 dollars. The Yellow Alternative would cost between $4.2-$5.1 billion in 

2013 dollars. The No Build Alternative would include future planned and proposed 

highway projects, but would not include any rail planning. The Phoenix to Tucson rail 

corridor is being studied to address inter-city travel needs where the travel needs are 

growing but the opportunity to expand highways is limited. Phoenix is the only 

metropolitan area in the United States with a population over 1 million without a 

commuter or regional passenger rail system. 

Safety concerns regarding a potential passenger rail system include a number of issues, 

including vehicular traffic and pedestrian conflicts at highway-rail grade crossings and the 

safety of rail passengers on trains and at stations. An understanding of the potential 

number and type of crossings (at-grade or grade-separated) contributes to an 

understanding of the degree of risk for collisions within each corridor alternative. For 

example, urban crossings may include higher volumes of cross traffic and warrant the 

cost of grade-separated crossings. There is a possibility that nearly 140 public and private 

at-grade and grade-separated crossings would be affected if the Yellow Alternative was 

chosen and 100 public and private crossings if the Orange Alternative was selected. Any 

modification, alteration or newly constructed public crossing would require Commission 

approval.

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -23

Staff's inspection activity would ensure that any crossing improvement project was 

installed and maintained in a manner as safe as possible. All aspects of any new or 

existing rail system would be subject to Staff inspections.

In order to accomplish a multidisciplinary evaluation of alternatives, an Alternative 

Analysis ("AA") was undertaken as part of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study 

("APRCS") that involved conceptual engineering of possible alternative alignments at a 

level possible for cost estimating, scheduling, operational analyses, and community 

involvement.

Staff believes a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alignment would be 

more compatible with existing local plans, property ownership, serve a larger population, 

and affect slightly fewer natural resources, sensitive noise receptors, and archaeological 

resources than a rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative. The potential to 

affect water resources, wildlife corridors, and potential species habitat would be greater 

in the Orange Corridor Alternative. 

Compared to the No Build Alternative, a passenger rail system within either corridor 

alternative offers increased access to transit for protected populations and economic 

generators as well as improved air quality and energy consumption.

A passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative would require nearly 

double the capital cost than the Yellow Corridor Alternative and would be more difficult 

to implement. The operating and maintenance costs would also be higher. The No Build 

Alternative would not incur any of these costs, but it would not meet the identified 

purpose and need for an alternative mode of transportation between Phoenix and 

Tucson. While the right of way ("ROW") costs would be potentially higher for the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative, the lower estimated annual operating costs is forecasted to recover 

the higher ROW costs within the first six years of operation.

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, and potential environmental 

impacts associated with implementing passenger rail within one of the alternative 

corridors, Staff finds that a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is 

considered more cost efficient and better performing than a rail system within the 

Orange Corridor Alternative, with similar potential impacts to the environment. Staff 

recommends further effort toward realizing commuter rail service connecting Phoenix 

and Tucson. As between the Orange and Yellow route alternatives, Staff believes that the 

Yellow route appears to present several advantages over the Orange route.

10/30/2015 Maricopa Association of Governments Marc Pearsall

Fantastic work as always. Only a couple of aesthetic comments. These are 

suggested/recommended edits and changes for the Final Report version: 

• The image of the red train on the lower right cover of Executive Summary / Final 

Report / Appendices is actually that of a non-US compliant, electric European unit. 

Coincidentally, the type of locomotive shown also does not have a front pilot/plow, and 

this missing equipment on a Rotem Metrolink car in Los Angeles actually contributed to a 

derailment/fatality earlier this year. Perhaps a simple photo-shopped image of an US 

domestic diesel or HSR locomotive may be a more suiting representation for the rail 

vehicle. I believe that WSP-PB and the FRA have some stock images you could use. (Page 

1 of the Exec Summary has a good image of the Amtrak Acela.) 

• Also, perhaps add a small image of Tucson’s active Amtrak depot to the Tucson 

skyline montage? (Two images from MAG’s collection are attached.) 

The following map changes should be included in all future pertinent atlases/map books. 

Thank you for your suggestions. The 

FEIS document covers and map 

Corridor Aerial Atlas pages have been 

revised per your suggestions. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -24

(Old GIS map layers and shape files die hard!)

ADOT Yellow-Corridor-Aerial-Atlas

• On map 32 of 91, the [former railroad] spur into the GRIC should be deleted from the 

final map.

• On map 42 of 91, the [former railroad] spur to Williams AFB should be deleted from 

the final map.

• On map 51 of 91, the old SPRR Creamery Branch has been transformed into the new 

Metro light rail (since December 2008).

10/30/2015 Pima County Administration C.H. Huckelberry,

County Administrator

Congratulations as you approach the completion of the Tier I EIS for the Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study. Pima County has only one major concern about the results presented in 

the Draft version of the Study for Phase I. It is not apparent that the planning reflects the 

extension of the Passenger Rail Corridor to Tucson International Airport (TIA) in the initial 

implementation phase. On December 18, 2012, the Pima County Board of Supervisors 

passed and forwarded to ADOT a resolution supporting the designation of TIA as a critical 

rail station location" and inclusion of the Tucson International Airport rail station in the 

initial implementation of the Passenger Rail Corridor. " 

While we understand that the recently published Alternatives Analysis focused on the 

analysis of two alternative routes between the two major metropolitan areas, Figure 2-5 - 

Corridor Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study depicts the route from 

downtown Tucson to TIA as a ''Future Extension." The area surrounding TIA is one of our 

largest employment centers and is near the new Aerospace Parkway and planned 

Sonoran Corridor where significant industrial employment growth is anticipated.

At the September 16, 2015 public meeting in Tucson, the speakers unanimously called for 

the initial implementation phase to include TIA. The alternate routes in the Phoenix area 

are adjacent to Phoenix Sky Harbor and Mesa Gateway Airports. If the initial 

implementation phase of the Passenger Rail stops in downtown Tucson as presented in 

the last study, another 10 miles of rail will need to be constructed to get the line close to 

TIA.

Pima County reiterates our support for the initial implementation phase of the Passenger 

Rail System to be extended to reach TIA and urges that the study results be revised to 

reflect this plan.

The proposed connections to TUS, Sky 

Harbor, and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 

are an opportunity to link the major 

airports to provide employment and 

passenger access to each. Each airport 

is a current or planned major 

employment center as well as a travel 

port. The project plans to eventually 

link these airport areas together, but 

all the details have not been covered 

in this Tier 1 EIS. 

Based on public and agency input, 

ADOT and FRA will commit to 

extending the study area to TUS for 

future project-specific passenger rail 

(Tier 2) studies, which would include a 

TUS station on a passenger rail system 

from Tucson to Phoenix. As noted 

elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT anticipates 

that a Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger 

rail system would be funded 

incrementally, and that construction 

and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific 

phasing of a future passenger rail 

system is not known at this time but 

would be determined as funding is 

allocated and as part of the 

subsequent project-specific NEPA 

process. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -25

10/29/2015 Pima County Department of 

Transportation

Priscilla S. Cornelio, 

Transportation Director

Dear ADOT Passenger Rail Study Team,

Pima County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ADOT Passenger Rail Study. 

We support the study and the recommendations with one exception. We recommend 

that the preferred final route extend from downtown Tucson approximately 10 miles 

south to Tucson International Airport. We recommend that any future evaluation and 

study include this segment.

Based on public and agency input, 

ADOT and FRA will commit to 

extending the study area to TUS in 

future (Tier 2) studies, which would 

include a TUS station on a passenger 

rail system from Tucson to Phoenix. As 

noted elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT 

anticipates that a Tucson-to-Phoenix 

passenger rail system would be 

funded incrementally, and that 

construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific 

phasing of a future passenger rail 

system is not known at this time but 

would be determined as funding is 

allocated and as part of the 

subsequent project-specific NEPA

process. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -26

10/27/2015 City of Phoenix

Street Transportation Department

Ray Dovalina, Jr., Director

The mile-wide corridor alternatives in 

the Draft Tier 1 EIS follow the same 

alignment within the City of Phoenix. 

Specific alignments were not 

considered in the Tier 1 EIS. In future 

project-specific environmental studies, 

FRA and ADOT will coordinate with the 

City of Phoenix. 

Subsequent project-specific studies 

will comply with Title VI and 

Environmental Justice regulations and 

policies as specific alignment 

considerations are discussed, including 

areas with protected populations and 

the area immediately north of Sky 

Harbor Airport.

Coordination among numerous 

agencies and stakeholder groups will 

be necessary in developing specific 

alignment alternatives near Sky 

Harbor Airport. These include, but are 

not limited to: 

• City of Phoenix Aviation 

Department

• City of Phoenix Planning and 

Development Division

• City of Phoenix Street 

Transportation Department

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• Valley Metro Light Rail
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -27
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -28
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -29
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -30
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -31
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -32

10/12/2015 City of Coolidge,

City of Eloy,

Town of Gilbert,

Town of Queen Creek

Mayor Jon Thompson, 

Mayor Joel G. Belloc, 

Mayor John W. Lewis, 

Mayor Gail Barney

The Yellow Corridor Alternative follows 

the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way 

(ROW), but does not necessarily use it. 

The Tier 1 EIS does not designate a 

specific alignment, only a corridor that 

is preferred over others.

The lower estimated cost of the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative is attributable to 

differences in overall alignment length, 

projected construction costs, and 

required number of rail vehicles. 

Projected ROW cost within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative is actually higher 

than that for the Orange Corridor 

Alternative but constitutes only a small 

percentage of the total estimated cost 

of a project within either corridor 

alternative. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -33

9/17/15 Town of Gilbert, 

Development Services Department

Patrick Banger

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -34

9/16/2015 Town of Queen Creek Mayor Gail Barney

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -35
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -36

10/30/2015 City of Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild

Based on public and agency input, 

ADOT and FRA will commit to 

extending the study area to TUS for 

future passenger rail (Tier 2) studies, 

which would include a TUS station on 

a passenger rail system from Tucson 

to Phoenix. As noted elsewhere in this 

EIS, ADOT anticipates that a Tucsonto-Phoenix passenger rail system 

would be funded incrementally, and 

that construction and operations 

would be implemented in phases. The 

specific phasing of a future passenger 

rail system is not known at this time 

but will be determined as funding is 

allocated and as part of the 

subsequent project-specific NEPA 

process. 

10/27/2015 City of Mesa Mayor John Giles

Congratulations on completing the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the 

Passenger Rail Corridor Study.

During the Alternatives Analysis, your team did a remarkable job reaching out to the various 

stakeholders along the different proposed alignments. I know you met with City of Mesa staff 

on numerous occasions.

The city also appreciates that the locations of the recommended alternative scenarios serve 

Mesa and the East Valley. However, we feel there is a significant missed opportunity by not 

directly linking Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport as shown in the Yellow Alternative. Currently 

the airport serves 1.3 million annual passengers with over 2,000 jobs located at the airport. 

The Gateway Airport Master Plan calls for a long-term annual enplaned passenger total of 

2,200,000, or 4,400,000± annual passengers served. The high range forecast identifies that 

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. Access to 

the three major airports in the 

corridor is an important element of 

the passenger rail service. As noted, 

airport access would be evaluated in 

much more detail in the next phase of 

study. This could be a subsequent 

project-specific (Tier 2) NEPA 

document or another study completed 

prior to the Tier 2 studies moving 

forward. A commitment has been 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -37

Gateway could handle 5,000,000 annual enplaned passengers, or around 10,000,000 total 

passengers annually.

The EIS states the future rail line serves the airport however, this alternative would require 

passengers to take a shuttle 3-6 miles from a potential station area in Gilbert to the airport 

terminal. By not directly connecting the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport with Phoenix Sky 

Harbor International Airport and Tucson International Airport, the region misses an invaluable 

opportunity to create synergy in the aviation industry within the State of Arizona.

During the study, and in subsequent study presentations, ADOT staff committed to do 

another study as part of the Tier 2 EIS to look at how to better connect the three airports in 

the next phase of this project. However, the Draft Tier 1 EIS simply indicated that “these 

analyses (airport connection) will be undertaken as part of future studies but does indicate 

when such a study would occur.” The City of Mesa respectfully requests that the study team 

amend the language in the Airport Connection section under Next Steps to more fully commit 

to doing the airport connection study “as part of one of the independent

localized studies in the Tier 2 study.”

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement

(EIS).

made that airport access would be 

part of subsequent Tier 2 studies 

under any circumstances.

9/14/2015 City of Mesa Parks & Recreation Roxana Rojo Yantos

What parks/parkland will be affected by the yellow corridor? The Draft Tier 1 EIS examined milewide corridors and not alignments, so 

all properties and resources in the 

corridor were identified as being 

potentially affected. The Corridor 

Aerial Atlas Appendix in the Tier 1 EIS 

identifies the parks and parklands that 

may potentially be affected, but until 

subsequent project-specific studies 

examine conceptual alignments, 

whether these or other parks would 

be affected by a project cannot be

ascertained. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -38

10/30/15 Jess Knudson, Mark Eckhoff, 

Gilbert Olgin, William Randolph1

Town of Florence Officials

Thanks for this opportunity to comment on this latest stage of the ADOT Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study.

The Town of Florence appreciates the time and effort that has gone into this Study to date 

and we look forward to working with ADOT and the other members of this extensive project 

team for many, many years to come.

The Town wishes to express its ongoing support for the future Passenger Rail system to be 

integrated into the planned North-South Freeway Corridor. This is a position that has been 

officially adopted by our Town Council and integrated into our adopted General Plan Future 

Land Use Map. This multi-modal approach will be far superior to any other options under 

study and should provide greater efficiencies in right-of-way acquisition, reduced 

development costs and fewer environmental impacts. There is also significant stakeholder 

support for this option from the major property owners owning land impacted by the planned 

Passenger Rail and Freeway Corridors in the Florence area.

Whether ADOT, the FRA and others select the North-South Corridor option or the Union 

Pacific option through Florence, the Town is adamant about there being a rail stop in the 

Town of Florence, whether this be a commuter rail stop or an inter-city rail stop or both. 

Florence is the County Seat and one of the major employment hubs in the County. 

Furthermore, by the time the rail line is developed, Florence will likely be the largest or one of 

the largest population centers in Pinal County based on the sheer amount of private and state 

land available for future development, as well as the current and planned infrastructure and 

necessary resources to support smart growth. To gain the negative impacts of the rail system 

without the benefits of one or more stops would cause irreparable harm to the Town of 

Florence. It would also have significant negative impacts on land and transportation planning 

and development activities in the region.

Thanks again for this opportunity to share our comments on this important study.

Thank you for your comment and for 

sharing the position taken by the 

Town. The station locations have not 

yet been selected. Stations shown on 

maps were only identified as a basis 

for projecting ridership and serving 

the affected areas. The Yellow 

Corridor Alternative includes an 

assumption for a station in Coolidge 

and one in the Santan Valley area. The 

Orange Corridor Alternative includes 

an assumption for a station in 

Florence. When the final concept is 

developed and an alignment set, the 

stations would be placed based on 

where the best service can be offered 

and the highest ridership achieved. 

ADOT intends to work with 

community partners and transit 

providers to connect communities in 

the vicinity of a station to the rail 

service whether directly on the line or 

not.

 

1 Comments submitted individually
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -39

10/28/2015 Gila River Indian Community

Executive Office

Stephen Roe Lewis

Responses to individual comments 

begin on the next page.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -40

FRA sent a letter to Barnaby Lewis, 

GRIC-THPO, on September 5, 2013 

inviting the GRIC to participate in 

consultation pursuant to Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation 

Act regarding historic properties, 

including Traditional Cultural 

Properties, which might be affected by 

the proposed project. At the 

commencement of project-specific 

(Tier 2) studies, FRA and ADOT will 

continue Section 106 Consultation 

with the GRIC-THPO.

As alignment alternatives are 

developed during subsequent Tier 2 

studies, FRA and ADOT will coordinate 

with the GRIC-CRMP to obtain 

available Class I, Class III, and TCP data 

and to discuss requirements for a TCP 

overview and cultural resource survey 

of the area of potential effects of 

proposed alignments that intersect 

GRIC land.

In subsequent Tier 2 studies, ADOT 

will comply with GRIC DEQ 

environmental regulations for the 

designated study area for portions of 

proposed alignments located within 

the Community boundaries.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -41

During subsequent Tier 2 studies, 

ADOT and FRA will more fully assess 

the effects of vibration, noise, and 

light associated with the proposed 

passenger rail and will identify 

appropriate mitigation measures to 

reduce noise and light pollution found 

to affect sensitive wildlife species in 

the vicinity of the project, both on and 

off GRIC land.

During subsequent Tier 2 studies, 

ADOT will coordinate with GRIC DEQ 

to gather data concerning past land 

uses and the potential for hazardous 

and solid waste contamination, USTs, 

and brownfield or Superfund sites.

During subsequent Tier 2 studies, 

ADOT will address impacts to species 

of cultural significance to the GRIC. In 

preparing the biological evaluation, 

ADOT will consult with the GRIC to 

obtain information on culturally 

significant species.

ADOT will coordinate with GRIC’s 

Department of Transportation as 

alignment alternatives are 

investigated during subsequent Tier 2 

analyses.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -42

Residential areas and sensitive 

receptors such as the Casa Grande 

National Monument that would be 

adversely affected by proposed 

alternative alignments would require 

appropriate mitigation measures to 

adhere to FRA and FTA standards.

Project-specific (Tier 2) studies would 

analyze socioeconomic impacts, 

Section 4(f) resources, and farmlands 

potentially affected by a passenger rail 

facility.

ADOT will further investigate “Lastmile” connections between 

community centers and rail stations 

once station locations have been 

determined in project-specific studies. 

The railroad layer on Map 32 has been 

revised for the Final Tier 1 EIS and no 

longer shows the spur line heading 

northwest through the GRIC.

A supplemental EIS is not warranted; 

the comments applicable to the Draft 

Tier 1 EIS have been addressed in the 

Final Tier 1 EIS.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -43

(no date) Tohono O’odham Nation Peter L. Steere, Tribal 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

The proposed routes cross the Traditional use Lands of the Tohono O’odham Nation.

The Tohono O’odham Nation is concerned about impacts to many cultural and sacred sites.

The Tohono O’odham Nation is concerned about the possible disturbance of the burial sites 

of ancestors. All large Hohokam village sites should be avoided.

A complete Class III (100%) survey will need to be completed of both alternative routes 

before selecting a final route.

The route selected should be the one that has the least impact on cultural sites.

A Cultural Landscape Study that incorporates both alternative routes needs to completed and 

used as an evaluative tool before selecting a final route.

All reports and studies need to be reviewed by the Tohono O’odham Nation and other Tribes.

Presentations on this railroad project need to be made to the Chairman of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. 

Presentations on this proposed railroad project need to be made to the Tohono O’odham 

Nation Legislative Council Cultural Preservation Committee, and eventually to the full 

Legislative Council. 

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. ADOT and 

FRA respect the interests of the 

Tohono O'odham Nation and other 

Tribes whose Traditional Lands are 

crossed by the study corridor 

alternatives. ADOT and FRA developed 

a Tier 1 EIS to identify a single corridor 

for a future passenger rail alignment 

prior to undertaking detailed data 

collection and analysis of the areas 

affected. ADOT recommended, and 

FRA identified, the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative as the preferred 

alternative based on multiple factors, 

including potential ridership, 

estimated costs, and public input. 

Preliminary research undertaken for 

the Draft Tier 1 EIS indicates that the 

potential impact on known cultural 

sites within each of the two corridor 

alternatives does not differ enough, in 

the context of other environmental 

and non-environmental factors, to 

differentiate one corridor over the 

other. 
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -44

10/30/2015 Union Pacific Railroad Company Melissa B. Hagan, National 

Environmental Counsel & 

Senior Counsel–

Environmental Law

ADOT has had ongoing discussions 

with UP related to the preferred 

Yellow Alternative. Based on 

information obtained from UP and 

analysis of the alternative, the 

implementation of passenger rail 

within the Yellow Corridor Alternative 

would not be expected to result in a 

change in the number of freight trains 

currently operating in the Tucson to 

Phoenix corridor. 

Some freight train scheduling 

modifications would be required to 

prevent conflicts with passenger 

service. Upgrades to the existing UP 

track were assumed as part of this 

alternative, in addition to projects to 

accommodate passenger rail 

operations. These upgrade projects 

would allow continued service to 

freight customers and mitigate 

potential restrictions to freight 

movements.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -45
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -46

9/16/15 Tucson Electric Power

Land Resources

Shannon Breslin, 

Manager

Thank you for your comment, and the 

information you provided on Tucson 

Electric Power’s existing and future 

transmission and substation facilities.

During subsequent project-specific 

studies, ADOT will coordinate with 

utility companies, including Tucson 

Electric Power, during planning and 

design of the passenger rail system.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -47
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -48
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -49

10/29/15 Tucson Airport Authority Bonnie A. Allin

Dear Sir or Madame:

On behalf of the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) , thank you for the opportunity to review 

the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ADOT Passenger Rail Study 

and provide comments.

The TAA is generally supportive of the project and the proposed recommendations contained 

within the EIS. However, there is one major item that must be addressed to allow for our full 

support of the project. This item is the location of the southern terminus for the initial phase 

of the passenger rail.

The current EIS shows the initial phase of the rail terminating in downtown Tucson. The TAA 

strongly requests the terminus be located at TIA. Leaving TIA out of the initial phase of the 

project will result in numerous unintended and adverse impacts to the Airport and local 

economy (Note: TIA provides $3.28 economic benefit to the community). These adverse 

impacts include , and are not limited to , the following :

• Enormous competitive disadvantages for TIA; potential loss of customers to other airports

• Severe reduction in cargo and commercial air service in the region

• Diminished air service development opportunities

• Diminished business growth and development opportunities

• Potential job loss

• Inability to transport the work force to the largest industrial employment area

• Failure to connect to the Sonoran Corridor

The Pima County Economic Development Plan (2015 - 2017) identifies an area immediately 

south of TIA for major near-term development. This area, referred to as the Sonoran Corridor 

and Aerospace and Defense Corridor, is a catalyst for economic growth for the region. The 

integrated master plan includes connecting Highway 1-19 and Highway 1-10 through the 

Sonoran Corridor to enhance transportation links across vast geographic areas and national 

boundaries, and to combine the power of air, rail and surface transportation to create a major 

Southwest logistics center at TIA.

The TAA , Pima County, and City of Tucson have invested millions of dollars to prepare for this 

critical economic development opportunity , with the goal to promote and support 

industrial growth to the region and state, attract businesses and increase high-paying job 

growth, and to protect our existing major employment base. The rail terminus near this area 

is essential to make both the rail and the land development successful for the region.

Between the period of 2011 and 2013, the TAA and members of the community brought 

these critical points to the attention of ADOT numerous times and were assured TIA would be 

the southern terminus point in all scenarios. However, the latest report does not reflect or 

incorporate the TAA and our community's comments, concerns and recommendations. The 

TAA respectfully asks that the Final Tier 1 EIS include TIA within the initial phase of work.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact 

me at boallin@flytucson.com or Mike Smejkal, Senior Director of Development Services at 

msmejkal@flytucson.com.

Public input throughout the 

development of the AA and Draft Tier 

1 EIS indicated airport access to be an 

important consideration as a feature 

of future passenger rail service. The 

corridors analyzed for environmental 

impacts and other factors in the Tier 1 

EIS, as established in October 2011 

through the NEPA scoping process, 

terminated in downtown Tucson. 

While extending passenger rail to TUS

was not considered in the Tier 1 

environmental analysis, the 

Alternatives Analysis of the APRCS 

included coordination with Tucson, 

South Tucson, PAG and TUS related to 

airport connectivity, and public and 

stakeholder input were gathered 

regarding how best to connect 

downtown Tucson to TUS. In addition, 

the conceptual ridership analysis 

developed for the AA included TUS at 

the southern end. 

Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS from 

agencies, jurisdictions, and the public 

strongly urged that the study corridor 

terminate at Tucson International 

Airport rather than downtown Tucson. 

Based on this input, ADOT and FRA will 

commit to extending the study area to 

TUS in future (Tier 2) studies, which 

would include a TUS station on a 

passenger rail system from Tucson to 

Phoenix.
Agency Comment Resolution Appendix

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -50

10/29/15 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Jane L. Morris

This letter is in response to ADOT's solicitation of comments regarding the Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study Draft Tier 1 EIS. Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (PMGAA) has been 

following ADOT's Passenger Rail Study process with great interest. PMGAA believes that 

passenger rail connectivity to Gateway Airport would play a significant role in the continued 

development and success of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.

Currently, Gateway serves 1.3 million annual passengers with over 2,000 jobs now located at 

the Airport. The current Gateway Airport Master Plan calls for a long-term annual enplaned 

passenger total of 2,200,000, or 4,400,000± annual passengers served. The high range 

forecast identifies that Gateway could handle 5,000,000 annual enplaned passengers, or 

around 10,000,000 total passengers annually.

PMGAA encourages airport-rail connectivity that would not require the need for busing 

between rail stations and the airport. PMGAA also welcomes the stated ADOT commitment to 

examine how to better connect the three airports (Phoenix-Sky Harbor, Tucson International, 

and Gateway) as part of the upcoming Tier 2 EIS.

This passenger rail study, along with the ADOT North-South Corridor Study, State Route 24 

construction, Valley Metro Southeast Valley Transit System Study, and the Transportation 

Master Plans of Gateway's adjacent municipalities, identify the importance of transportation 

planning and coordination in the Gateway vicinity. Providing additional modes of transit and 

connectivity to the Gateway area makes the Airport more attractive for employment and 

passenger growth, and would further solidify Gateway's role as an economic hub in the 

region.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this study. PMGAA welcomes the 

opportunity to further discuss and work with ADOT, and our regional partners, on this topic.

Thank you for your comment and 

participation in this study. Access to 

the three major airports in the corridor 

is an important element of the 

passenger rail service. As noted, 

airport access would be evaluated in 

much more detail in the next phase of 

study.
 

Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS

Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -1 

A. Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS Submitted Online

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/3/15 Shirley Baumgartner

I think a light rail system from Tucson to Phoenix should have been built years ago. The VRE 

light rail in Northern Virginia has been an economic boon for everyone. Tucson has had 

backward thinkers and planners for so many years I'm surprised they approved a trolley car 

to run for 4 miles downtown.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/3/15 Gary Kordosky, PhD

How can Casa Grande not be a stopping point of the way between Tucson and Phoenix? The 

Casa Grande area has the highest population density between Tucson and Phoenix and there 

is not trains stop there seems really odd. Everyone knows the legislature of the State of 

Arizona will not want to put a penny into a rail line between Tucson and Phoenix, so where is 

the money to come from? Even if the feds pay the capital, who is going to cover the operating 

costs of the passenger rail link between Tucson and Phoenix? This is just another boondoggle 

that consultants and engineers doing feasibility studies love. Scrap the project now and save 

a ton of money.

Casa Grande is a major center, but the preferred corridor

alternative would serve many more commuter patrons in the 

East Valley. The corridor that would serve Casa Grande directly 

has a much lower ridership compared to the other final 

alternatives. Casa Grande would be linked to the corridor by

other means.

9/3/15 Ernesto Villarreal

Hello, Looking at the Rail Corridor study I would vote for the Yellow path vs. the 

Orange/Green path. I live in San Tan Valley. Since this is a blended service (express service 

and local service) there are more communities to stop at on the proposed yellow path. The

Orange path would be great if there were more developed cities in its path. I would not vote 

for the Green path. I hope I live long enough to use it someday  . 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/3/15 Brent Honn

I'm a frequent I10 driver to Tucson for biz and as I need my car for appointments when in 

Tucson would never use the train, I do see benefit of such transit, although I think biggest 

issue on the I10 is amount of semi trucks. With that said, I think orange route thru east valley 

that has own right away and avoids dozens and dozens of at grade crossings is only way it can 

work. Also from Gateway Airport/AZ24 down to I10/Picacho Peak area the tracks need to be 

built in center of 4/6 lane freeway to add second N/S highway. But before the entire corridor 

is built, both ends should be started as commuter rail. 2 reasons- to get commuters/travelers 

used to and accept train travel as a mode, and second the need is greatest for intercity 

commuter now and will develop intercity in the future - your ridership numbers show much 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study.

Future studies will analyze specific rail alignments and impacts 

to existing and future grade crossings.

A final phasing plan has not been developed yet, but will 

consider funding and logical termini. The plan will consider 

logical approaches, such as the one you suggest.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -2 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

greater commuter usage. My vision is ADOT gets Phx downtown to Gateway commuter going 

and gets Marana to Tucson downtown commuter going at the same time, then while the 

middle section and eastern n/s freeway gets built, MAG adds NW, chandler, SW, Tempe 

commuter lines and PAG adds to airport and SE extensions to their commuter rail system. If 

thru the metro areas they aren't built as express lines with minimal stops the attractiveness 

and time savings is lost. So while end to end travel needs to be quick; users will still have to 

drive and park and wait for train at start side and then have travel via cab, rental, or pick up 

to end location, and those added times at start and finish may be a much time as actual train 

time.

9/3/15 Brian Harlow

This is long overdue. As a person who commutes between North Central Tucson and Chandler 

for work 4 days a week, I cannot understand why this discussion has not occurred sooner (or 

perhaps it has and I am not aware). The volume of commuters traveling between the two 

cities Monday through Friday makes travel on 1-10 a life threatening experience every day. As 

the growth of each city expands between, it only makes sense to plan and implement the rail 

corridor before it becomes too late. Don't become hamstrung like Tucson has become as a 

result of its failure to plan for growth and its inability to now develop the infrastructure to 

handle the traffic. As for the proposed routes, the yellow route, providing it is feasible, makes 

more sense. The proposed orange route is too far east in Phoenix to make it practical for 

most commuters who are traveling to Chandler, Tempe, Downtown and Scottsdale.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/4/15 Rory Brennan

We absolutely need this. I-10 has become unsafe, and these communities will thrive with the 

improved access and renewed economic growth corridors. Meanwhile, central Phoenix (and 

surrounding areas) deserve some relief from the ever-increasing automotive traffic from 

suburban commuters.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/4/15 Stephen Matthews

Howdy, being a guy who works in downtown Tucson and lives in Coolidge you might guess 

that I have 3 vehicles with over 200000 miles on them and another at 140000. Generally you 

have to go somewhere else to shop for things that you want, to find a good job or go to a 

competent doctor. I was looking at this project as a solution to many problems, going to work 

cheap and easy, creating economic growth in Coolidge and Pinal County and so on. But I see 

no listings for stops on the maps I downloaded. So basically If there are going to be stops, let 

While specific locations for stops have not been identified, a 

passenger rail system with the Yellow Corridor Alternative

would most likely warrant a stop in Coolidge.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -3 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

it go through Coolidge (Yellow) Otherwise use the other, because the extra volume of train 

traffic would be worthless noise that further lowers our already depressed real estate values. 

From a work perspective, YEA Baby! Either one would be excellent. Allowing people to get 

between the two largest population centers in a reasonable time.

9/4/15 Melody Moss

I am a resident of Tempe and I am in favor of the Green Route. It will be the fastest and most 

direct connection between Phoenix and Tucson. It will probably be the lesser expensive 

option as well. I like the fact that is option utilizes more existing railroad ROW. I am against 

the orange route. The attempt to pass every small town in the east valley is not a good use of 

funds. It is the longest, most expensive, and slowest route. It defeats the purpose of an 

"express train.”

The preferred alternative is the Yellow Corridor Alternative,

which generally follows the existing freight rail corridor 

through East Valley communities. While the Green Alternative

between Tucson and Phoenix offered the fastest trip of the 

top three alternatives originally considered, it did not attract 

ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively 

serve as many key population centers within the study 

corridor, and presented a high degree of potential cultural 

resource impacts. Considering the overall estimated costs, 

projected ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts associated with implementing 

passenger rail within in the corridor alternatives, a passenger 

rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is 

considered to be more cost efficient and a better performing 

passenger rail system compared to the other alternatives.

9/4/15 Elizabeth Leibold P.E. CPM, 

CFM

Yellow route is shorter (time travel, construction cost) and appears to have less impacts (less 

floodplain disturbance) – let’s do the yellow route – oh and Wildcats should get a discount on 

fares. 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/5/15 Annick Elziere

What a joy to hear that such project is up in the air. A passenger train between Tucson and 

Phoenix is the best that can happen, our days. It will help Tucsonans live better and happier. 

The future of Tucson is in our hands. The transportation system in the U.S. is facing great 

challenges for years as it reached to a point that leaves no more choice but moving forward 

and finding quick solutions to help people and businesses grow. The challenges that Tucson

and Marana are facing are grand and include increasing highway congestion with trucks and 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -4 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

thousands of cars on I-10, cancellations and delays at airports, rising fuel costs and of course, 

the aging population in Tucson. Driving cars makes traveling costly, adds more pollution to 

the area and brings much stress to people.

I leave home at 5 am to return at 6 pm. I have 50 minutes driving back and forth which 

stresses me out.

At 5 am the highway is already packed and that is not how Tucson should be. Tucson is a 

beautiful city and should be preserved. We don't need more pollution that needed. We don't 

need tons of people dying on the road. Why living on the edge when we could all drive to a 

train station, park the car there for the day and jump into a passenger train to bring us to 

destination. I live Northwest Avra Valley (Trico Rd.) and can't wait for a passenger train to 

stop by. The I-10 Marana Rd. Exit (by McDonalds) would be a terrific place for a train station 

with a lot of parking space to take people straight to the Tucson International Airport. There 

they can get a taxi and go to work. I know many people who feel like me.

I would think that all businesses at the new Twin Peaks Mall would much appreciate a train 

station at the Marana Exit, too. Many people between Tucson and Phoenix would use it. 

Maybe people could get yearly passes which would already bring lots of money. Maybe our 

taxes could be bumped a tiny bit for a beautiful and safe passenger train. It is all worth it. 

People who cannot find a job in Tucson would have no more excuses... and this would reduce 

crime in our cities. The Taxi business would bloom. This whole project would bring more jobs 

on the outskirts of Tucson and Phoenix. It would allow people from Phoenix to come more 

often and spend their paychecks in Tucson...

The Arizona Department of Transportation bringing safety to everyone and raising our quality 

of life is very important for Pima and Pinal counties. This is a beautiful area of Arizona and 

great things should happen, not just bad things as too often we hear on the television. If 

residents and tourists could buy a monthly pass, that would be wonderful. I would think that 

the train would offer WI-FI on board to encourage all business people to use their laptop 

while traveling. Companies would support this project, as they should.

I encourage the ADOT Passenger Rail Study Team to seriously consider this project for today 

and not the future. It will pay for itself, quickly.

9/6/15 Thomas Zane

Dear Sirs, I have driven the I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson hundreds of times in my career as a 

Fire Sprinkler Fitter which started in nineteen seventy-seven. In that time I am stunned that 

The proposed rail project is in addition to a widened I-10, not 

instead of it. Even with I-10 widened to four lanes in each 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -5 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

so little has been done to improve the I-10. It is inexcusable that in thirty-eight years time the 

I-10 is not an eight-lane highway for its entire length. This is a major corridor between two 

major cities!! The last thing we need in Arizona is another useless rail system. The most 

intelligent and cost effective improvement is to widen the I-10 to 8 to 10 lanes from Phoenix 

to Tucson. Thank You

direction, the transportation system may not be able to carry 

the demand that is projected. The rail option provides an 

alternative travel mode as well as additional capacity.

9/7/15 Laura Sagerman

I am in favor of this project. I like the alternative that goes along I-10 the best. It is the 

shortest and I and in favor of using existing corridors whenever possible to minimize 

environmental impacts.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Alternative is the shortest alternative between the 

two hub stations. It received comments of support from many 

participants in the public outreach process and from some 

agencies; however, the Green Alternative did not attract 

ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively 

serve as many key population centers within the study 

corridor, and presented a high degree of potential cultural 

resource impacts. The preferred alternative, the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative, would serve the most populous 

communities and end in Phoenix. Connections to other 

western cities have been assessed preliminarily by the federal 

government and shown to provide further benefits to the 

Phoenix-Tucson route.

9/7/15 Lynne Roper

I simply want to endorse your work and add the need for the rail and its potential to lessen 

vehicle traffic which negative impacts the environment more than the rail corridor. It would 

be extremely useful for increasing business opportunities in Southern Arizona as well as 

movement of people.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/7/15 Karen

The Statement covered the areas expected to be studied for this project. I am very supportive 

of this rail corridor, as this would benefit Arizona on many levels. Residents who currently live 

in one city and work in another would be able to save car wear and tear, as well as, gas 

money by commuting. This money could then be put into the economy in other ways. 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -6 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Additionally, work could be done on the train thereby increasing productivity. A train would 

benefit the environment by decreasing the smog we have due to the large amount of auto 

drivers. Tourists would be better able to travel between Tucson and Phoenix potentially

increasing tourism to both cities. There would be a potential expansion in the pool of 

applicants for jobs when those without an auto have the means to travel from Maricopa to 

Pinal and Pima county. And lastly, on a personal note, traveling I10 is frightening with all 

those 18-wheelers. I've seen too many of them weaving lanes and this has limited my travel 

to Tucson. A train is safer and convenient to travel in between the two cities.

9/8/15 Marsha Segerberg

Please go forward as soon as possible with this project. Any negative environmental impact 

will be offset by the positive impact of dramatically reducing highway traffic along the I-10 

corridor as well as in Tucson and Phoenix. Consider adding stops at places in these two major 

cities that would make it convenient for access to local transportation and for parking at train 

stops. The drive between Phoenix and Tucson on I-10 is at best stressful and uncomfortable, 

and at worst hair-raising and dangerous. It is ironic that the rail line runs parallel and unused, 

except by freight trains, along the way.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Stop locations and other details would be further developed 

during subsequent project-specific planning and design.

9/8/15 calcote.meg@... 

Highly interested. Regularly travel between Phoenix and Tucson to visit family. Love taking 

the light rail in Phoenix. Would love not to have to drive the 2 hours to Tucson. I survived a 

rollover accident many years ago, so driving is always a stressful experience for me. I often 

feel unsafe driving between Phoenix and Tucson. People drive too fast or too slow, cut one 

another off, drive with unsafe loads in the backs of their cars, etc. Anything to help relieve 

congestion on this drive has my full support. The proposed orange and yellow corridors seem 

like good choices. I lean slightly towards the yellow corridor, but overall either one would 

help with congestion.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/8/15 Danny

Keep it off of the reservation just like we recommended you should have done 50 years ago 

with the I-10. But politics were more important then I guess. If you want commerce and 

development to follow, you'll have to go around (the reservation) and use the undeveloped 

ARIZONA STATE TRUST LAND which will be much more economical over the long term. You 

must also consider that the Queen Creek/San Tan Valley corridor should be a priority since 

they are already starving for some relief from sorely unplanned traffic management. The 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -7 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

railroad is already there and there is no question that the opportunities for future economic 

improvements go through STV than through the reservation. The ONLY way it makes any 

sense to replicate the I-10 route would be if the reservation were going to pay for it, period!

9/8/15 Christian Vesper Tucson Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce

I approve of this project. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/8/15 Robert Nemitz

I think this would be a good thing for the region, under the circumstances that it's high-speed

rail that can go 200 Mph plus. It would certainly open up easier access to Jobs and 

recreational events such as the pro sports teams if one could get from Phoenix to Tucson in 

less than 45 min.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The technology for this project has not been defined. The 

assumption used in the analysis was for a maximum speed of 

125 mph, but it would be possible to operate at a higher speed 

under the right conditions.

9/8/15 Stephen Warner

To whom it may concern, With Tucson and Phoenix continuing to grow as much as they are, 

this is a much needed investment. I am a student at the University of Arizona and currently 

live in the Red Rock Village community off of I-10. My fiancé works for the city of Casa Grande 

which is why we live out here. Having such a train would reduce traffic along I-10 dramatically 

and make it a safer stretch of highway to travel. Since there are so many people who do 

commute between Tucson and Phoenix it would greatly reduce the amount of cars on the 

road, and would reduce the need to expand I-10 any more than it currently is. Also, this is an 

opportunity for Arizona to make some revenue for our roads and highways. Finally, I just 

want to add that if a rail line like this existed in Arizona, I would definitely use it to travel 

between Tucson and Phoenix. Thank you for your time and your efforts on this project, it 

looks spectacular!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/8/15 Nathan Hall

As someone who travels from Tucson to Phoenix often, the need for passenger rail between 

the two cities is becoming increasingly needed. Please make this a priority.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/8/15 Cindy Lutz

About time... Can you imagine how much auto traffic will be reduced? Less gas emissions, 

accidents. Can't wait for this to happen. Hope I can ride it in my lifetime...

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The anticipated reduction in vehicle miles traveled resulting 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -8 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

from implementing mass transit in the region would be 

expected to result in a reduction in vehicle emissions.

9/8/15 Lisa & Larry Gould

We are in favor of this project moving forward. However, confused it would begin in Eloy? 

Why not Marana? Plenty of Land here! Thank you and looking forward to hearing more.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The project would extend from Tucson to Phoenix. A potential 

phase of this project is for a local train (commuter service) 

between Tucson and Marana. Project phasing will depend on 

funding and logical termini.

9/8/15 Barbara Murphy

For it to be functional why can't it be like ferry service and take your car too? The exact form of operation has not yet been decided, though 

it would be unusual for a commuter and relatively short 

intercity service to accommodate personal vehicles. The 

emphasis would more likely be on strengthening the 

availability of travel options at the destination.

9/8/15 Christina Patriarca

Yes, Hi, I would like some clarification/explanation of a few things: 1) Why do we need the 

proposed rail line to go from TIA to Sky Harbor? Do you expect significant amount of travel 

between the two airports? 2) If there Is room for a light rail line, then why not just add a few 

more highway lanes so people can use their preferred mode of transportation (car) and 

designate one lane for semi trucks only? Wouldn't this be a more cost effective solution? Did 

you study this or compare to existing study? Ask anyone who travels I-10, and they will say 

just having 3 lanes makes that drive so much better and safer. 3) Will this be built at Pima 

County construction rate speed or Maricopa construction rate speed? 4.) Most importantly, 

who pays for this, and how much will taxes need to be increased? This should be the first 

sentence in your proposal.

1) The proposed connections to TUS and Sky Harbor (and 

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway) airports are an opportunity to link the 

major airports to provide employment and passenger access 

to each. Each airport is a current or planned major 

employment center as well as a travel port. 2) The proposed 

type of service is closer to a heavy rail system and would offer 

an alternative to travel on the freeway. The public and agency 

response over the course of the project has been favorable to 

developing another way to get between the two major 

metropolitan areas. The analysis included consideration of the 

growth in the study area over the next 30 years and it assumes 

I-10 would be widened to four lanes in each direction and 

another North-South Corridor roadway would be built in 

eastern Pinal County. Even with those improvements, the 

corridor from Tucson to Phoenix is forecast to not be able to 

handle the demand for travel, so an alternative system was 

evaluated. 3) Construction rates are usually defined by the 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -9 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

availability of funds for the projects. 4) Funding is a major 

consideration. The funding program has not been defined for 

this project, but would most likely entail various forms of 

funding including federal and local public revenues, private 

funding from those who would benefit from the new system, 

or a combination of both private and public funding.

9/8/15 Lisa See

I would be able to go to Phoenix to see a play or go to a Museum and, also, to be able to fly 

out of Sky Harbor without having to drive. Driving more than an hour or so is becoming 

difficult for me and I can't always get a ride.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/8/15 Janine Wier

After reviewing each route, the most logical seems to be the yellow route. It goes through 

areas that have recently developed but people still need to drive out of the way to get into 

Phoenix or Tucson, not to mention other towns such as Mesa. This route also seems to run 

near both the Mesa Gateway airport and Sky Harbor, which can be a huge incentive for 

revenue since tourist will have an option other than rental cars or taxis. For the working man 

in the outlying areas, this route is most appealing.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The points you mentioned were some of the criteria applied in 

identifying the preferred corridor.

9/8/15 Kerry Swindle

This plan is a great idea and needs to be done. Can't wait to relax on a trip to Phx instead of 

doing that boring drive.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/9/15 Leigh Ayn Scott

Rail between Tucson & Phoenix makes more sense than adding routes to bus system that is 

on strike!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/9/15 Paula Arnquist

As a Tucson resident who works for a statewide organization, I would use the passenger rail 

up to 3 times a month. My use would be for both personal and work purposes. Route 

preference - my only preference is that I am able to get easily to downtown Phoenix locations 

as well as easily to Sky Harbor Airport. Fewer transfers are especially important for airport 

travel because it makes it easier to carry luggage. For the economy and small business owners 

in Tucson, I would like to see easy access to 4th Ave. and downtown Tucson. Perhaps we 

The preferred corridor would serve both Phoenix and Sky 

Harbor with both local and express trains. The latter would 

offer fewer stops. Access to 4th Avenue in Tucson would be 

available from the proposed Historic Depot station downtown 

by means of the Sun Link streetcar.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -10

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

could inspire some of that Phoenix money to travel down here. Thank you. Mostly, let's just 

build it and then we can expand to more riders after it is built!

9/9/15 Terrel L. Pochert

Where is the connection with The City of Maricopa and the Amtrak connection? Leaving the 

City of Maricopa out of any future plan is a major oversight. Being able to connect Phoenix to 

the Amtrak in the City of Maricopa should be on top of the list. Now that the City of Maricopa 

is going to build a new Amtrak station, the ADOT must consider this.

The alternative through the City of Maricopa was eliminated 

because it traveled over a longer distance than other 

alternatives, served fewer population centers, and had 

potential impacts on GRIC lands. Also, the public preference 

for this alternative was very low. Nothing proposed in this 

study impacts the construction of a new Amtrak station or the 

communities served by Amtrak.

9/9/15 Kenneth Dohrman

Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail is an idea whose time has not yet come, and if we are lucky, 

will never come. What are passengers supposed to do upon reaching Tucson? Take a bus? 

Rent a car? Catch a taxi? The fact is there is no "downtown" Tucson other than the University. 

Any envisioned savings in commute time will prove to be illusionary because of the need to 

switch transportation modes. With the increasing development of automated highway 

drivable cars, this will in the future become the preferred method of travel between Phoenix 

and Tucson. The proposed expenditure of money on a rail system would be better spent on 

improving Interstate 10 between the two cities with features that will facilitate automated 

driving.

The rail system is proposed as an alternative to the personal 

vehicle and the freeway. Passenger rail would offer an 

alternative to vehicular travel between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Upon arrival at a destination, train passengers would depend 

on good local access services (i.e., taxi, bus, light rail, Uber, 

bike share, etc.) much like what happens when passengers 

arrive at an airport.

9/9/15 sirfrednes@... 

The nearest Amtrak station is in Maricopa; will there be any considerations to adding a 

Phoenix to Amtrak segment?

A Maricopa to Phoenix segment was studied in the Red 

Corridor Alternative; however, it was eliminated because this 

route from Tucson to Phoenix traveled over a longer distance 

than other alternatives, served fewer population centers, and 

had potential impacts on GRIC lands. Also, the public 

preference for this alternative was very low. 

9/9/15 William Cain

If you're going to invest in infrastructure, go with modern technology. If it's cheaper or more 

time conservative to drive between the cities, and people have to worry about transportation 

The technology for the rail connection between Tucson and 

Phoenix has not been selected. A 125-mph train was used as a 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -11

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

once they arrive, most people will still opt for their personal vehicles. There is absolutely NO 

reason to build a train that does the trip in the time a car can do it. It needs to be twice, or 

three times, as fast to make it appealing. A maglev or other high-speed train is forward 

looking and will encourage use. Don't invest in out of date methods.

conservative basis for estimating travel times and ridership. 

Results suggest there is significant demand even with the 

assumed technology. Trains traveling at 125 mph can make 

the trip in less time than a car, but as you note, it does require 

an additional connection at the destination end of the trip.

9/9/15 Alicia Holt

I think a train from Phoenix to Tucson is a FABULOUS idea. I personally would only use it once 

a year or less, but I love the idea!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/9/15 Tieg Zaharia

Looking forward to it! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/9/15 Mark Bice

I think the corridor that includes all 3 airports and trying to pick up most (or a better fit 

through the middle of more of the existing/future population centers) of the population 

corridors means that the Orange plan has the best hope of serving the most riders in both 

directions. And I do like the idea of mixed service including express and local service for the 

pickup/drop-off of smaller or more localized population clusters.

Because it serves the downtown area of most East Valley

communities, the Yellow Corridor Alternative is better able to 

access the main population centers than the Orange Corridor 

Alternative. Both alternatives propose connections to serve all 

three airports in the later phases of project development. The 

blend of local and express service is intended to offer both 

accessibility to local stations and shorter travel time for those 

travelling longer distances.

9/9/15 Benjamin F. Nead

1. BUILD IT! We don't need another silly highway (i.e.: I-11) cutting through virgin or near 

virgin desert. The United States needs to rebuild modern passenger rail systems that used to 

serve the country almost a century ago, until we decided not to fund them any longer and let 

them deteriorate. The idea that we actually fly passenger jet aircraft on 200 and 300 mile 

hops in this country is completely insane and wasteful. The rest of the civilized world uses 

high-speed rail for medium-length passenger hauling. We need to rejoin the rest of the 

civilized world in this regard. The petroleum industry will fight it. They sell lots of automotive 

gasoline and aviation jet fuel. They won't have a way to make money off of electric highspeed rail. They'll hate it. Don't cave in to this special interest group. 2. Build it next to I-10. Of 

the three proposed routes shown on this map . . . http://www.azdot.gov/images/defaultsource/passengerrail/finalalternatives_commoncorridors_2013june27.jpg?sfvrsn=2 . . . the 

The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study was designed to 

identify a viable corridor to implement passenger rail services. 

The type of service was assumed to operate at up to 125 mph 

or what is known as "higher speed rail" not true high-speed

rail (over 150 mph). The distances between the urbanized 

development in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas is only 

about 75 miles and is not by itself a good candidate for the 

highest level of performance. Nothing precludes ADOT and 

FRA from evaluating high-speed rail during subsequent studies 

if engineering feasibility, costs, public interest, increased 

ridership, or other factors warrant consideration of a high-
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -12

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

so-called "Green Alternative" makes the most sense. And it really is the greenest, since it's 

not cutting through largely undeveloped land. It also is the most direct path between the two 

major metro areas, getting "from point A to point B" the quickest. If it really is going to be 

high-speed rail (i.e.: 150mph or greater,) the straight-line approach is best. 3. And yeah . . . 

HIGH SPEED RAIL! Europe, Japan, China . . . the list goes on. Developed nations everywhere 

are routinely building trains for human travel that cross the 200 mph mark. Everywhere, of 

course, but here in "uh-MUR-ik-uh"! Don't build some wimpy-ass 60mph train and force 

riders into taking oddball detours, which brings me to my next point . . . 4. Let Phoenix build 

out their own light rail infrastructure to service their east valley and areas to the south and 

east of central Phoenix. Don't turn a Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail system into a "sorta, 

kinda" project that forces travelers to go all over Phoenix to get to the airport. I don't see 

maps with squiggly multi-colored lines at the opposite end - in Tucson - going all over that 

metro area. And, as a Tucson resident, I wouldn't want that either. Keep the path direct: 

airport to airport. Leave it up to the individual cities to build out their own light metro light 

rail or buses. Phoenix already has a good head start in that regard . . . lots of light rail already. 

Tucson lags behind and needs to expand its Modern Streetcar line to head down to the 

airport and buy a whole bunch of electric buses. But that's another story. 5. Don't share the 

passenger rail with existing freight lines! I can't emphasize this enough. This is why Amtrak is 

such an epic failure. If you happen to heading to California by rail and get behind a freight 

train that's unloading, you might have to wait for an entire day (18 hours or longer . . . and 

I'm not exaggerating here) to continue on the route. That's insane! No other rail system on 

the entire planet that calls itself modern works this way. Build the new passenger rail next to 

the freight lines but DON'T EVER share the tracks between the two entities. . . EVER!!!! (Hint: 

build the high-speed line with different track format/spacing, so the lines can't ever be 

shared. Problem solved!) 6. We really need a true high-speed rail system connecting Tucsonto-Phoenix. To summarize: make it fast (150mph or above,) make it direct (airport to airport, 

along I-10, with no Phoenix sightseeing routes) and make it autonomous (no sharing the rails 

with freight rail lines.) But, above all, MAKE IT!

speed system. Regarding the selection of a preferred 

alternative, two main considerations are speed and ridership. 

The Green Corridor Alternative shortens the travel time 

between Phoenix and Tucson by a few minutes, but 

considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental impacts 

associated with implementing passenger rail within in the 

corridor alternatives, a passenger rail system within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost efficient 

and a better performing passenger rail system compared to 

the other alternatives. 

9/10/15 James S. Nabozny

This is a must do, for our state!!! A rail system of this kind, between our two cities should 

have been in place already a hundred years ago!!! This is important to both cities. The project 

has to be undertaken now. Enough time has gone by. Let's get this rail in once and for all!!!!!! 

The time is now. Do it!!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -13

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/10/15 Merrill Darcey

Please for the sake of ridership, establish the GREEN Study. The green makes a lot more 

sense. Most riders want a convenience to the airports-- Tucson and Phoenix and the 

numerous sporting venues. The populations of Casa Grande and Awahtukee would make 

ridership numbers and support feasibility. Offer a boarding station at Wild Horse Pass and 

Gila River Community will give you all the right of ways. The populations of Queen Creek and 

San Tan are too dependent on water, which will impede their growth. The route has to offer 

convenience to the major population centers. Lodging also matters for tourists, another 

reason for Wild Horse, and Casa Grande. It's time to step up to the plate with the Indians, 

they want this as well. I do not support the other chosen routes and will protest them 

through the multiple channels.

While the Green Alternative between Tucson and Phoenix 

offered the fastest trip of the top three alternatives originally 

considered, it did not attract ridership comparable to other 

alternatives, did not effectively serve as many key population 

centers within the study corridor, and presented a high degree 

of potential cultural resource impacts. The Yellow and Orange 

corridor alternatives have better access to existing population 

centers in Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe and other East Valley 

communities.

9/10/15 Wayne Kielsmeier

Gentlemen & Ladies, This is a long overdue program and I have lived in Tucson since 1970 and 

certainly endorse this program, as it will open up traveling to Phoenix for hard to get airline 

connections out of Tucson, and hopefully at some point you could take it and travel with your 

vehicle like they do in Europe.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/10/15 Alexander Benezra

First and foremost, I cannot wait until this project is completed. It is long overdue and would 

provide countless benefits to Phoenix, Tucson, and all areas in between. Allowing people to 

commute to either city from each other or from Pinal County would do wonders for our state 

and numerous local economies. As a person who commuted from Phoenix to Tucson for 18 

months, this rail line would have made my life infinitely easier during that time period; I may 

still be working in Tucson. Although the green alternative would have been the most 

beneficial for me personally as an Ahwatukee Foothills resident, the yellow alternative (and 

to a lesser extent orange) would appear to grant the greatest benefit. Not only would they 

connect to Gateway airport and allow for connections between it and Sky Harbor, they would 

allow residents of Coolidge, Florence, and San Tan Valley to commute to either Phoenix or 

Tucson. As three large population centers of Pinal County, this would make the project reap 

the fullest benefits of a commuter train line. Although the green line goes through Casa 

Grande, it seems to be merely an express line between Phoenix and Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

You captured many of the points identified in the analysis that 

contributed to the selection of a preferred alternative.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -14

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/10/15 Benjamin Shockley

I am for the Yellow Alternate path of the train. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/10/15 Diana Calica

A high-speed train between Phoenix and Tucson is long overdue. A fast commute between 

the Phoenix and Tucson areas would be of economic benefit to both cities. It would allow for 

an increase in tourism in both directions. It would make it easier for Arizonans to commute 

between both cities for work or pleasure. It would facilitate interactions between businesses, 

medical and legal entities and universities. A commuter train which includes stops at towns 

along the way would increase the prosperity of those towns, as well, for the same reasons. A 

fast speed train would bring our communities together in a positive way not provided by 

highway travel.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/10/15 Arnold Calica

This train link between Tucson and Phoenix would make both cities more prosperous. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/11/15 Tice Suplee Audubon Arizona

I support the idea of a passenger rail service between Phoenix and Tucson in concept. I am 

concerned about the vagueness of the maps, particularly the "Common Corridor" areas 

depicted to the west of Phoenix. Exactly where are those routes? I would strongly oppose the 

loop 202 as a common corridor as an example. How does this concept fit with the I-11 intermodal corridor project? Can the environmental analysis be comprehensive to include both? 

Some species of conservation concern in the corridor include Burrowing Owl, Kit Fox, Sonoran 

Desert Tortoise. Include wildlife connectivity corridors in the design. Reference the Pima 

County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

The Common Corridor areas reaching west of downtown 

Phoenix represent conceptual future connections out to 

Buckeye and Surprise. These mile-wide corridors are centered 

on existing railroad rights-of-way; no specific alignment has 

been identified. The Common Corridors are shown to 

demonstrate that in addition to linking major cities in the 

Tucson to Phoenix corridor, passenger rail service between

major cities like Tucson and Phoenix can connect to points 

beyond the downtown areas via existing infrastructure. 

However, no environmental analysis was conducted for the 

Common Corridors (referred to as “Rail Connections” in the 

FEIS) west of Phoenix and south of Tucson in the Draft Tier 1 

EIS; these corridors would be subject to a separate NEPA 

analysis, including public input on corridor alternatives and 

specific alignments. The I-11 corridor currently under study 

was not used in identifying future connections, although it 

may be considered in future studies. The Purpose and Need 

for the I-11 study and the Passenger Rail Study are separate 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -15

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

and unrelated, and their environmental investigations are 

being led by separate federal agencies. FRA's preferred and 

selected alternative for passenger rail, the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative, was noted in AGFD's comments as the corridor 

that would have fewer potential adverse impacts to wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. Specific recommendations for providing 

structures to facilitate wildlife crossing would be made during 

subsequent project-specific analysis. The Pima County 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is referenced on Page 5-120 

of the Draft Tier 1 EIS.

9/12/15 Tina Hammerton

The Orange Alternative would allow park and ride options to work for my husband and I, who 

commute from Apache Junction to Tempe. We would welcome this opportunity to reduce 

our impact on the environment. Go Orange!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Based on the analysis completed, the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative was chosen as the preferred alternative because, 

considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental impacts 

associated with implementing passenger rail within in the 

corridor alternatives, a passenger rail system within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative is considered to be a more cost efficient 

and a better performing passenger rail system compared to 

the other alternatives.

9/12/15 Julie & Gideon Aboud

We are writing to express our strong disagreement with the Yellow Alignment. We live at the 

Reserves at Fulton Ranch – which is off Arizona Avenue/Lake Dr. The train tracks are 4 houses 

behind our new house. We just moved into this new house a couple months ago after having 

our house on Redwood Lane torn down by ADOT for the Pecos Freeway. Now we find out 

ADOT wants to put a bullet train right next to our new house. When we bought this house, 

we were told by Fulton that those tracks only carried a 4 car local freight train that only went 

by once a day. I was horrified when I read in the paper the other day that it’s the preferred 

alignment for the train to Tucson. There are new homes all around us and even more 

expensive homes on the other side of the tracks. They don’t even have a wall blocking them. 

This train will significantly affect our property values and cause more crime and pollution in 

our neighborhood. We most certainly are against this alignment.

The Yellow Corridor Alternative does not pass through 

Chandler. The tracks you refer to are located within the Purple 

Alternative, which was eliminated from further study during 

the Alternatives Analysis process. Heading north from 

Coolidge, the Yellow Corridor Alternative passes through 

Queen Creek and turns northwest through Gilbert before 

heading north again into Mesa. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -16

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/12/15 Clifford Anderson

Please consider the use of bicycles in conjunction with railroad ridership as part of this plan, 

including portage of bicycles on the railway cars and connection to safe bicycle routes at rail 

stops.

Thank you for the suggestion. Each station location will need 

to provide appropriate services to allow travelers to complete 

their trips, and the integration of bicycle portage and bicycle 

routes may be an elements of those services.

9/14/15 John Murphy

I do travel this corridor frequently and to be truthful there is no advantage to having a railway 

corridor for human travel. There are many bus routes already and I would rather see an 

increase in the number of lanes. I don't think a railway will help at all with congestion. Same 

for the Phoenix to Flagstaff corridor. I would not foresee with the increase in relocations and 

visitors that this would help either.

Bus routes were studied as part of the project. Their main 

drawback is they are subject to the same limitations as cars in 

congested conditions and cannot travel at as a high a speed as 

the proposed train. The passenger rail study assumed that I-10 

would be widened to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and 

another North-South Corridor freeway would be built. 

Congestion levels are still expected to increase. The train 

serves as an alternative and a complement to I-10 and would 

allow riders to make the trip in less time without experiencing 

congestion.

9/14/15 Miranda Fisher

I am a Phoenix native and have long wondered why we don't have a major public transit 

system connecting Tucson and Phoenix. I am in full support of this project and I believe 

constructing this railway would be an asset to both Phoenix and Tucson as their populations 

grow in the coming decades. In addition to providing convenience for travelers, this railway 

would have environmental benefits as fewer drivers would be on the road, resulting in 

reduced emissions and cleaner air. Cutting oil consumption also has an impact on energy 

independence for the country as a whole. This railway would put Arizona in a good place to 

deal with growth in the future. I have 100% support for the project and am willing to pay 

higher taxes for this project to be successful. Feel free to contact me if necessary. I'm happy 

to voice my support in whatever forums will be most helpful to push this project forward!!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Robert Dixon

Do it! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -17

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/14/15 Jonathon McCommack

The idea of rail is nice but seems to not be that big of a help. I-10 wouldn't be bad if ADOT 

would finish it to have 6 lanes the entire distance between Chandler and Marana. It really is 

hard to understand why that's taking so long to happen. We're stuck with unreasonable 

bottlenecks between. On Sundays the four-lane section between Casa Grande and Chandler 

is ridiculous and always packed. When is that going to be finished to 6 lanes?

The passenger rail study assumed that I-10 would be widened 

to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and another NorthSouth Corridor freeway would be built. Congestion levels are 

still expected to increase. The train serves as an alternative 

and a complement to I-10 and would allow riders to make the 

trip in less time without experiencing congestion. Widening 

I-10 depends on many factors including funding, mitigating 

environmental impacts, and negotiating right-of-way with land 

owners, including the Gila River Indian Community.

9/14/15 Eric Montag

We fully support the addition of rail transportation from Phoenix to Tucson and as a resident 

of Gilbert, would like to see the following: -final route choice to come through the southeast 

valley with train stations in Gilbert -regular rail service into downtown Phoenix from the 

southeast valley (even though light rail is great, it is a drive to the stations and need a faster 

alternative) this can also be commuter rail to Tempe/Phoenix employment centers -Need a 

good alternative to the growing traffic on the freeways -Example to the southwestern states 

that is this a viable transportation alternative and that people will use it Thank you for the 

consideration and if you need to implement in phases, would like to see the commuter lines 

from the southeast valley to Phoenix as the initial one.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The proposed Preferred Alternative is the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative, which passes through Gilbert and would provide 

access to Phoenix and Tempe. Preliminary studies evaluating 

ridership identified that two stations in Gilbert may be 

warranted, but station locations would be evaluated in more 

detail in future studies.

9/14/15 Brad Freed

I saw that you were looking for feedback on the railway between Phoenix and Tucson. What a 

great idea and way to boost our local economy! It would be great for U of A and Arizona 

State students as well as commuters for work. Funding should be started by donations. With 

all of the rich people we have, that would be a no brainer. Start a gofundme or whatever 

works.

Thank you for your comment and the suggestion.

9/14/15 Zeljko Bozic

I'm not frequent traveler to Phoenix, but I do travel periodically for non-business reasons. I 

think fast rail would be beneficial to people like me as well as people traveling more often. 

Off course this would have to be affordable enough that I would be able to get a cab to make 

it to my final destination and back and not having to spend more than I would on gas, driving. 

To drive to PHX and back is about a tank of gas (~$35). If it was a slow train with more than 2 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -18

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

stops, I would not even conceder using it.

9/14/15 shira.liu@...

This rail line would be wonderful. I hope that Arizona leaders can dig up the political will to 

see it happen.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Tara White

I have been a resident since before Santan Valley existed and the growing pains of this area 

are predominant when viewing the traffic on a daily commute into Tempe or Phoenix and the 

fastly growing communities started or planned for future growth. It has especially become 

apparent within the last two years that this area has no plans and is struggling to upkeep the 

hefty demands of this growth.

I agree with this in theory and as I understand there is no or limited funding to make this a 

reality. The city of Santan Valley and Queen Creek are in need of this proposed rail line 

desperately. The orange or yellow routes would suffice for these communities as well as 

Florence and Tucson. 

Funding of course is the tricky part as I feel the commuters within these communities are 

struggling currently and the funding through the cities doesn't provide adequate funding to 

support the roads they are allocated for as it is. Solar energy, on the other hand, is becoming 

more popular and is a money making industry at this time.

One could ask for funding from such an industry for the savings in marketing costs alone. If 

you place ads for solar energy in the rail then commuters and residents for several cities 

would see said ads and save the solar companies a small fortune in marketing if done 

correctly. If you ask me it is the industry that can economically afford it and had the most to 

gain by a future collaboration and maybe even run the rail in alternative energy sources.

The economic footprint and such care for environmental details may attract other companies 

within the alternative energy industry for marketing as well.

Best of luck and I will watch for great news as I am unable to attend city meetings.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -19

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/14/15 smp733@...

So is the green alternative still being considered? If one clicks on the map image it shows the 

green one. If one clicks on the title of the map it does not show the green one.

The Green Alternative did not attract ridership comparable to 

other alternatives, did not effectively serve as many key 

population centers within the study corridor, and presented a 

high degree of potential cultural resource impacts. It was 

shown only as part of the process that led to the final two 

alternatives addressed in the Tier 1 EIS.

9/14/15 Dan Haney

We prefer the orange corridor with the rail coinciding with the north-south proposed 

freeway.

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is the preferred corridor, but 

there is an option to include the use the Orange Corridor 

Alternative for segments within Pinal County in future studies, 

as shown in Figure 7-1 of the Tier 1 EIS.

9/14/15 Maia Ingram

Rail connection between Tucson and Phoenix would be a huge boost to the local economies 

of both cities and would clearly be widely utilized. This is a wonderful step to move our region 

forward.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Mike

I am in favor of the yellow alternative and concur with the findings of the Draft EIS. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 barvel4@...

With the number of people who need transportation to either work or visit the correctional 

facilities in Eloy and Florence, I think a spur line built at the time of the initial construction 

would be good. Numerous vehicles carpool up there daily. It is a pain in the ***!

The detailed analysis of specific connections would be 

undertaken in a later phase of study.

9/14/15 nkrop23@...

The train to Tucson is dumb! Make a train to Vegas. Don't waste the money for Tucson. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Barney Brenner

Please go with the no-build option. It is utter foolishness to spend hundreds of millions of 

dollars constructing a rail corridor between Tucson and Phoenix when there1s already an 

excellent alternative which is used by many tens of thousands of people every day using their 

own money, not that of beleaguered citizens. On this existing route, known as Interstate 10, 

The financing for this project is not yet defined. If there is no 

funding source, it will not be built. The objective of the project 

is to begin to identify how travel can occur in the PhoenixTucson Corridor when congestion grows on I-10. The 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -20

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

four people in an average car can make the trip in under two hours for around $2.50 each in 

gas. Don1t try to fix a problem that doesn1t exist. Neither Arizona nor the federal government 

is rolling in dough. They’re both in debt. So why on earth is this colossal waste of resources 

even being considered? The statistics used to promote rail are always greatly embellished in 

its favor including stats on ridership, cost to build and cost to operate. The cost benefit is not 

there. Drive a railroad stake through the heart of this project.

passenger rail study assumed that I-10 would be widened to at 

least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and another North-South 

Corridor freeway would be built. Congestion levels are still 

expected to increase. The train serves as an alternative and a 

complement to I-10 and would allow riders to make the trip in 

less time without experiencing congestion. More carpooling 

would contribute to better operation of I-10, but that has not 

been the historic practice of many who use it.

9/14/15 Patrick Ritchie

Yes, great idea! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Mike Shelton Yuma City 

Councilmember-Elect

Hello, I live in Yuma and will be joining the Yuma City Council in January. I'm also a former 

Phoenix resident. I see no compelling need for rail service between Phoenix and Tucson and 

wonder where the demand is coming from to justify talking about this project. It’s a 90-

minute drive for goodness sake. However, I could see reopening the main Phoenix railroad 

station closed in 1995 based on the principle a major city should have a general passenger 

railway. W ouldn't hurt either to look at im proving the passenger rail in Yum a. Forcing 

people to stand outside in the elements late at night waiting for a train isn't something I'd 

recommend. No inside quarters, just a bench outside by the track. Why don't you look at that 

instead?

The passenger rail study assumed that I-10 would be widened 

to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and another NorthSouth Corridor freeway would be built. Congestion levels are 

still expected to increase. Travel times on I-10 are expected to 

lengthen considerably in the future to well over three hours. 

The train serves as an alternative and a complement to I-10 

and would allow riders to make the trip in less time without 

experiencing congestion.

Passenger rail service in Yuma is operated by Amtrak; ADOT 

has no jurisdiction over that service.

9/14/15 Jeremy Sarnataro

I am against the rail line. There are plenty of easy ways to travel via shuttle or many bus lines 

for commuters. I-10 is very easy to commute to and from Phoenix and Tucson as well. I also 

feel that both cities are reliant on having a vehicle for transportation, which makes taking a 

train impractical.

Bus routes were studied as part of the project. Their main 

drawback is they are subject to the same limitations as cars in 

congested conditions and cannot travel at as high a speed as 

the proposed train. The passenger rail study assumed that I-10 

would be widened to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and 

another North-South Corridor freeway would be built. 

Congestion levels are still expected to increase. Travel times 

on I-10 are expected to lengthen considerably in the future to 

well over three hours. The train serves as an alternative and a 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -21

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

complement to I-10 and would allow riders to make the trip in 

less time without experiencing congestion.

9/14/15 Susan Weiss

I am in favor of the passenger rail line connecting Phoenix and Tucson. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Starr Lucero

I think instead of expanding to Tucson. You should expand out towards San Tan Valley 

because there is always heavy traffic to get places and there is no other way to get into town 

other than drive. We don't have buses and taxis are way too expensive. Most of us drive into 

Phoenix for work and I think it would cut down a lot on pollution.

San Tan Valley is served directly by the Yellow Corridor

Alternative, which is the alternative FRA selected for 

subsequent studies.

9/14/15 lange9@...

Talking about BILLIONS to build a new rail which is fine. However we had trains to Tucson and 

Prescott, Flagstaff etc. which have been decommissioned and the infrastructure is still in 

place. If that doesn1t beat all by-passed Phoenix with Amtrak so if you want to go to Chicago 

you1re bussed to Flag and if you want to go to Tucson, LA or DC you are bused to Maricopa 

Yes a train to Tucson would be great, so would some common sense.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/14/15 Tim Lank

1. There is currently no Amtrak connection in Phoenix. The closest station is Maricopa. Under 

this proposal, the nearest connection to Phoenix for Amtrak would be Eloy. This seems 

counterproductive, especially after viewing all the Amtrak trains in the video. There needs to 

be a close and convenient connection to Amtrak if Amtrak will no longer go thru Phoenix. 2. A 

major deficiency of many train systems in this country is the lack of inexpensive, long-term 

parking around each station. Most people will need a car to get to the train. A matter of 

convenience which would increase ridership. 3. Diesel locomotives are not environmentally 

sound compared to overhead high voltage catenary electrified systems. What is the cost 

delta? Many old roads in the east are overhead electrified, in addition to the BMLP RR here in 

AZ. 

1. The purpose of the passenger rail system in the Tier 1 EIS is 

to link Tucson and Phoenix and to provide commuter service 

within the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. Amtrak can be 

accessed in Tucson from the proposed passenger rail service. 

2. Though station locations and parking have not been 

specifically identified in this analysis, a more detailed 

subsequent environmental study would evaluate proposed 

parking facilities appropriate for the train service. 3. The 

technology for this service has not been identified. A dieselelectric train was used as a conservative means for estimating 

travel times and ridership. In later studies, train technology 

would be part of the recommendation.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -22

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/14/15 Jamie Lynn McClay

Hi there. I would like to see all the alternative lines built or utilizing current rail lines as well as 

add an additional "blue" line to the Westgate area. We currently have two professional sports 

teams here that I know those that live in the Tucson area as well as the Queen Creek and San 

Tan areas commute to.

AZ is so unfortunately behind the times of other cities that it compares to in the way of rail 

transportation (regional, light rail and subway). We should be looking to build as current 

infrastructure is being refurbished or as new additions are being started (202 east/west on 

the south side for example).

We should also look at Yuma as well as Flagstaff (and even north to Page), even west to Lake 

HC and Parker as well as seeing if we could join in a co-op with Nevada and Utah to share the 

cost to hit areas right over the border to those states such as Vegas and Lake Powell.

This will open tourism to this area, a more viable option as well as promoting people to "get 

out" more and explore the state.

The one thing I miss about living east is the lack of this type of transportation. I don't even 

take the light rail currently because where I live, I have to drive 20 minutes just to park at BH 

and 19th Ave. I miss the options of taking a train like I used to from DC to NYC and really wish 

we had something like this.

Hop to it! I'm sure I'll likely be dead before suitable options will likely occur but at least I can 

have a small smile as I take the sky train every day to and from work from the employee lot.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study was identified as an 

evaluation of corridor level passenger rail opportunities 

between downtown Phoenix and downtown Tucson. The 

Notice of Intent submitted in 2011 as provided for in the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defined that 

corridor as the basis for the Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). While general consideration has been given 

to other segments beyond the defined study limits, they have 

not been analyzed to address the requirements of NEPA. At 

the same time, the concept of extending the line or 

connecting it to another mode (e.g., light rail) to reach key 

destinations in the Phoenix metropolitan area is not precluded 

by the Tier 1 EIS. Regarding destinations outside of the Tucson 

to Phoenix corridor, the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning 

Study completed by the Federal Railroad Administration 

looked, at a very high level, at the possibilities of a high-speed

rail service linking the main Arizona metro areas with 

destinations in California and Nevada. That report is available 

on the FRA website at 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17109.

9/14/15 Wayne Balmer

Hello and thank you for requesting comments on this project. I will be unable to attend your 

meetings, and as a result, I am submitting my comments in writing. In my opinion the Yellow 

Corridor is the most viable option for the following reasons: • It primarily uses existing right 

of way, although it is possible some additional land may be required when the final alignment 

is completed. This eliminates the costs, time and the EIS and other paperwork needed to 

acquire the right of way for the Orange Corridor. Much of the Orange Corridor goes through 

currently undeveloped and mostly native Sonoran desert areas so the ROW acquisition could 

be both costly and time consuming, then there would be additional costs to prepare mitigate 

existing conditions identified in the EIS and prepare the ROW for construction. The railroad 

may be difficult to negotiate with to obtain use of their property, but it would still be easier 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Regarding rights-of-way, the Yellow Corridor Alternative

follows the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (ROW), but 

does not necessarily use it. The Tier 1 EIS does not designate a 

specific alignment, only a corridor that is preferred over 

others. Even if the alignment ultimately follows the UPRR, the 

property over which it would run belongs to UP with all the 

rights and responsibilities that go with that. The Orange 

Corridor Alternative, also only a corridor at this stage, would 

more likely be able to benefit from state ROW along freeways 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -23

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

than having to deal with the paperwork and all the property owners involved to purchase 

their individual properties • It passes through existing population centers, while the Orange 

Corridor generally does not. This would be extremely beneficial in that it would allow the 

system to take advantage of the existing transportation, land use infrastructure and 

amenities in these communities to facilitate passenger use. It would also place stations at 

locations that could promote infill type development that would be more “transit friendly” 

and help make more efficient use of the infrastructure available in these communities. 

Stations in existing communities would also help promote travel between portions of the line 

(i.e. Mesa to Queen Creek) which would help increase ridership. It would also give local 

communities a reason to lend their political support to the project come election time to 

approve the funding. • Time needed for project completion. The Yellow Corridor could be 

completed quicker given that there is minimal land acquisition involved and much of the 

infrastructure required for the Corridor is already in place as a result of the actions in the 

communities adjacent to the railroad. In addition, many potential problems, such as flooding, 

have already been addressed. The Orange Corridor ROW is also dependent on the funding 

and construction of the North/South Freeway. As a result, both projects will need to be 

funded in order for the Orange Corridor to be constructed - and what are the chances of that 

happening? I believe there are three additional issues that must be discussed regarding the 

potential for completion of this project: 1. How would the total cost and cost/benefit for this 

project compare with the costs and cost/benefits for the construction of additional freeway 

lanes or new freeways? My guess is that the Yellow Corridor would have a much more 

positive financial outlook than the Orange Corridor – but how would they compare to the 

cost and cost/benefit of the South Mountain bypass freeway? 2. Where would this project 

rank in terms of need, as compared with all the other proposed or planned transportation 

improvements in the ADOT budget? Would it be number 1 or number 354, given the cost of 

this project and need for other projects? If it has a low ranking considering both cost and 

cost/benefit compared with other projects is it likely to ever be funded? 3. Given that ADOT’s 

construction funding budget is limited and the needs are many, it is likely some form of 

supplemental funding (an Arizona Prop 400) would be needed to complete this and other 

large-scale transportation projects. How likely is it this project will have sufficient political 

support to be funded under that type of program when competing with other high profile 

projects (and likely more politically popular) such as Interstate 11 and the North-South 

Freeway that could also be proposed for funding? Would Pinal County rather have the Yellow 

Corridor or the North-South Freeway when push comes to shove? Depending on the answers 

to those three questions, as well as the result of the upcoming public hearings, if the Yellow 

(e.g., a future North-South Corridor) and, therefore, also 

benefit from reduced ROW costs. The Yellow Corridor 

Alternative serves more of the existing population centers 

and, consequently, generates higher levels of ridership. If the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative follows the UPRR, it would likely 

be easier to build and less expensive than the Orange Corridor 

Alternative. The Tier 1 EIS assumes that I-10 would be 

widened to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and another 

North-South Corridor freeway would be built, so passenger rail 

would be in addition to freeway construction. The passenger 

rail project would be built in phases according to available 

funding and the potential for ridership. The entire cost would 

not likely be borne all at one time. Pinal County has indicated 

support for the Yellow Corridor Alternative in the letters 

submitted on the Tier 1 EIS. After consideration of the analysis 

and the public and agency input, the preferred and selected 

alternative is the Yellow Corridor Alternative. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -24

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Corridor is not selected I would recommend defaulting to the “No Build” option so that ADOT 

staff and resources could be re-prioritized to other projects. Should you have any questions, 

please feel free to contact me.

9/14/15 Ben Bethel

I'd like this to be included in public comments please:

As a person who's been civically involved for the past 32 years, with a keen focus on local 

mass transit, commuter rail, and intercity high-speed rail systems, I am strongly against this 

proposal.

The focus should be on the following segment:

* Phoenix, Arizona to Yuma, Arizona to Riverside, California - at speeds of 225 mph. At 

Riverside, this would connect with the California high-speed rail system, which is under 

construction currently with the first 140 miles opening within the next 2 1/2 years.

* Start from Goodyear airport and use abandoned rail bed to Wellton, Arizona just east of 

Yuma, then run along current freight right of way past the Imperial Valley, Salton Sea, 

Coachella, Indio, Palm Springs, and then Riverside.

* The Riverside station terminus would enable travelers from Phoenix to get to downtown 

Los Angeles in just over 2 hours, San Diego in just over 2 hours, Anaheim in under 3 hours, 

San Francisco in under 6 hours, and Sacramento in just over 6 hours.

* Later expand to downtown Phoenix, downtown Tempe, and then to Tucson, Nogales, and 

Rocky Point.

* Connecting to major metro areas is key, rather than Phoenix and Tucson - the distance is 

too short, and the population of Tucson too small for commuter rail to be effective.

* High-speed rail is profitable; commuter rail is not and will have low ridership numbers for 

decades and continue to require subsidies.

* This commuter rail, if built, would have to be grade-separated and start with minimum 

average speeds of 125 mph... Still it's not a smart move.

* Currently there are over 385 daily flights between Phoenix, Yuma, Palm Springs, Ontario, 

Burbank, LAX, Orange County, and Long Beach airports... during peak season we've hit 

The Federal Railroad Administration recently completed a 

high-level evaluation of high-speed rail from Arizona into 

California. It considered the routing you propose along with 

other possible alignments. This Tier 1 EIS is being completed as 

a follow-up to the Arizona State Rail Plan, which 

recommended as a first priority the connection by passenger 

rail of the two largest metropolitan areas in Arizona. This 

project would link to any efforts to connect into California or 

other western states. Ridership forecasts suggest that 

commuter rail and intercity rail could be successful in the large 

urbanized areas of Arizona. The recommended and selected 

alternative is the Yellow Corridor Alternative; if funded, this 

corridor would be the basis of further study to refine the 

details.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -25

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

maximum airlift, causing even advance purchase airfares between metro LA and metro 

Phoenix to reach $600+ round trip... these airfares dissuade business, dissuade travel, and 

force conventions and events to go to other cities. High-speed rail would eliminate these 

airfares and replace them with rail tickets that could be as low as $69 round-trip, if you follow 

the London to Paris Eurostar pricing models and promotional fares.

* By reducing strain on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, you will not reach maximum 

airlift, extending the airport's life beyond the year 2100 and also opening the airport for more 

profitable, longer distance flights... hopefully international flights. This also helps to bring 

more people to metro Phoenix, which then helps small local businesses that depend on 

having as many visitors as possible to be as profitable as possible.

In closing, commuter rail between Phoenix and Tucson is a bad idea, and instead we should 

be focusing our efforts on Phoenix to Yuma to Riverside (just 27 miles longer than using I-10 

to Los Angeles), and the abandoned rail bed is there, ready to be used. Let's focus on faster, 

profitable transportation solutions. This is happening all across the United States right now, 

and I'm puzzled at why there's no focus on the development of such a segment between 

Phoenix and Los Angeles at this time.

9/14/15 Eileen McCarty

Hello, I am a Sun City, AZ resident that actually works in central Scottsdale.

I have a great job with a prestigious company and that is why I choose to work so far from 

where I live.

I am also a 40 year resident, and I lived in central phoenix for most of my 40 years here, so I 

know the city streets in Phoenix quite well.

I am currently challenged by the train as a car commuter going to and from work.

The basic challenge is this, that the City of Phoenix has taken away...prime main streets in 

central phoenix to employ the train.

I have to travel Glendale Ave in order to link up to Grand Ave.to get home to Sun City at 

night.

Because of the ongoing construction, it has been extremely frustrating for me to get over in 

an easy fashion to I-17 on any rush hour time in the afternoon.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Tier 1 EIS analysis only evaluated potential corridors that 

essentially align with existing or proposed transportation 

corridors. If an alignment parallels the existing UP Railroad 

tracks, vehicular crossings would likely coincide with existing 

crossings. Any grade crossings associated with passenger rail 

would be required to meet FRA standards for safety and many 

freight rail crossings would be upgraded to achieve that. 

Roadway crossings would be evaluated further in subsequent

project-specific studies.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -26

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

This has been going on for almost 3 years now, since I have been working in Scottsdale.

My question is this, if anyone having to travel the main city streets in central phoenix 

now...We are being challenged by the train which essentially has taken over 

Major arteries and cars are having to compete with the train. You may think this is no big 

deal, but we are talking about hundreds of cars at the rush hour time.

Many of us will never take the train or bus...because these modes of transportation don’t go 

out to Scottsdale. Believe me, I looked into all of this several years ago.

In my opinion, the train is basically serving the needs of seniors, students, and folks who 

cannot afford a car, or can no longer drive a car.

To carve out millions of dollars to serve a smaller rational percent, is what I am having a 

problem with as well.

Why cannot our current bus system, be enhanced to serve these needs? 

My main problem is the route that this train is traveling and how it has disrupted rush hour 

traffic trying to make it across town.

I appreciate you taking the time, and I truly hope that my concerns are weighed as you 

continue to plan out the city for the future.

9/15/15 Susanna Canizo Schippers

Dear ADOT, My comments pertain to the need for additional mitigation to address impacts 

on wildlife movement posed by the new passenger rail system. Page 5-143 of the Draft Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement states that the passenger rail system "would result in a 

formidable barrier to wildlife movement by both large and small species." On page 5-144, it 

states that the passenger rail system would "bisect large intact habitat blocks." As described, 

these impacts clearly reach the level of a "significant impact." However, the recommended 

mitigation falls short of addressing such a significant impact. Specific recommendations for 

providing wildlife crossing structures should be made, with a map showing the location of 

each crossing. Such crossings could be modified as needed in the future, but a specific 

commitment is needed to ensure that impacts to wildlife will be addressed in the future. 

Additionally, the discussion of wildlife corridors in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects section 

(on page 5-235) contradicts the discussion in the Biological Resources section by stating that 

passenger rail system would "mostly affect individual animals rather than influence the 

While a passenger rail system would impose a barrier to 

wildlife movement, the mitigation measures listed on Page 5-

153 of the Draft EIS identify that additional studies would be 

conducted, and wildlife crossing structures would be designed 

to facilitate wildlife movement. Specific recommendations for 

providing wildlife crossing structures would be made during 

subsequent project-specific analysis. Within the 1-mile-wide 

corridor, the locations of future bridges and culverts cannot be 

determined or mapped. These types of structures, when 

designed to accommodate wildlife crossing, enhance the 

porosity of the linear barrier and reduce the impacts. While a 

long linear feature such a new passenger rail system could 

contribute to the barriers presented to wildlife movement, the 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -27

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

diversity or size of populations ..." If the rail system will pose a formidable barrier and disrupt 

large habitat blocks, the statement in the Cumulative Effects section is incorrect, and larger 

populations of animals will be adversely affected. This discrepancy should be addressed. 

Sincerely, Susanna Canizo Schippers

proposed corridors are adjacent to existing or proposed 

transportation corridors, with the intent that collocating the 

features would help minimize bisecting large blocks of intact

habitat. Furthermore, wildlife in the area where the corridor 

alternatives parallel the existing UPRR have habituated to 

trains and may adapt quickly to the passenger rail system. The 

cumulative effects analysis on Page 5-235 acknowledges that 

barriers to wildlife movement have fragmented habitat, and 

that a passenger rail system would contribute, which is an 

adverse effect. However, with modern design standards that 

incorporate features to retain wildlife connectivity, the effects 

would not be expected to influence species diversity or the 

size of the population when compared with existing 

conditions. Therefore, with mitigation measures applied, the 

effects were not determined to be significant. FRA's preferred 

alternative, the Yellow Corridor Alternative, is identified by 

AGFD as the alternative that would result in fewer impacts to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat.

9/15/15 Kevin Morrow

In addition to supporting the passenger rail corridor from Tucson to Phoenix, I believe that 

ADOT should also look at what would go beyond this undertaking. ADOT should also look at 

further destinations for passenger rail, either up I-17 to Flagstaff's Amtrak station or along the 

60 corridor through Wickenburg. From there, a rail line could connect Phoenix to Las Vegas 

with a transit hub in Kingman.

The Phoenix-Tucson corridor was identified as the priority 

passenger rail corridor in the State Rail Plan. Other 

destinations would be studied in later analyses.

9/15/15 MaryAnn Seim

Fantastic idea! More tourism opportunities! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/15/15 Seth Chalmers

I believe the EIS missed alternatives? I believe the High Speed Bus innovative idea that the 

University of Arizona proposed about two years ago needs to be included. I believe this is a 

topic of a research project that was proposed? The high-speed bus idea would include 

consideration of building a dedicated lane (one in each direction) on the current I-10 route 

that could be used exclusively by a special high-speed bus. Such an idea would be less 

The high-speed bus technology has not yet been fully 

developed and has little comparable research available to 

provide a basis of comparison. It would appear to require a 

dedicated lane and specialized controls that are not yet 

defined. While it may have merit in the long run and could be 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -28

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

expensive and result in a lot less environmental impact. This special lane idea could also lead 

to other ideas for uses and funding like making it a HOT lane which could be used for a fee, 

etc....An additional benefit of the I-10 high-speed bus idea is that it will help refocus attention 

on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson as the number 1 surface transportation priority in 

Arizona.

a component of the corridor travel options, it does not yet 

have sufficient definition to be a full modal choice.

9/15/15 Crystal Marrs

Please do this! The drive is so incredibly dangerous! This would allow us to visit up there 

more often as well as open up new activities to our kids.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/15/15 purehype@...

You need to include a method of transporting personal vehicles along with the passengers. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The concept of carrying vehicles would need to be addressed 

in later stages of study as appropriate.

9/15/15 Charlotte Mesick

I would HOPE that due consideration will be given to including some railroad cars for 

passengers to take their automobiles on the trains, ala the east coast lines to Florida.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The concept of carrying vehicles would need to be addressed 

in later stages of study as appropriate.

9/15/15 lvtrin27@...

I would like to first say that a time limit should be set at public hearings. I did not get to speak 

because three people decided to ramble nonsense for 30 minutes. With that being said, I do 

support the Yellow alignment. I strongly believe that the service should be all day at a 

reasonable frequency, (30-60 minutes off peak) for the Phoenix local commuter service. The 

far SE valley has the least access to freeway of almost any other valley community and a high 

quality, fast, all day local service would be an invaluable asset for that area to help curb 

freeway traffic. My in laws live in San Tan Valley and Ironwood or Ellsworth are mostly the 

only reasonable options to get in or out of Queen Creek and San Tan Valley. Even those roads 

are often over congested. With a local Phoenix area commuter rail with all day reliable 

service with stops in Queen Creek and Santan Valley will take reliance off the east valley 

freeways. I also would like to see some of connector between the rail and Gateway Airport. 

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment and the suggestion regarding the 

public hearings. Access to major airports in the corridor is an 

important element of the passenger rail service and would be 

evaluated in much more detail in the next phase of study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -29

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/15/15 Tony Alldredge

I oppose the proposed passenger rail service between Phoenix and Tucson for the following 

reasons: 1. Rail service is MUCH more expensive to construct and maintain than bus service. 

This has been demonstrated many times. 2. Rail service is MUCH less flexible than bus 

service. Rail service cannot easily be re-routed or extended, while bus service can be changed 

quickly and in-expensively. 3. Bus service can be implemented MUCH more quickly with 

MUCH less disruption than can rail service. I do support enhanced bus service between 

Tucson and Phoenix, even if substantially subsidized as a service to the two communities.

1. Bus service was considered in the original alternatives but is 

subject to the same limitations as cars in congested 

conditions, which is expected to significantly lengthen travel 

times in the Phoenix-Tucson corridor. Rail is not inexpensive, 

but it can offer service not available from a bus, such as 

traveling at higher speeds and being less susceptible to delays 

during dust storms. 2. Rail is somewhat less flexible than bus 

service and would rely on other services (e.g., taxi, Uber, light 

rail transit, bus, etc.) at the destination end of a trip. 3. Bus 

service is available now between the two major cities, largely 

by private companies who would normally increase service as 

demands warrants.

9/15/15 Lhechanova@...

Unfortunately neither the yellow or red route are the best choice. Both swing too far to the 

east and the green route was a better choice for a more centralized alignment with I-10 and 

would provide a more logical park and ride along the current feeder roads to I-10, as well as 

incorporating Casa Grande ridership.

The Green Alternative is the shortest alternative between the 

two hub stations, and it received comments of support from 

many participants in the public outreach process and from 

some agencies; however, the Green Alternative did not attract 

ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively 

serve as many key population centers within the study 

corridor, and presented a high degree of potential cultural 

resource impacts. Considering the overall estimated costs, 

projected ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts, a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. 

9/15/15 George Mulloy

The train rail to connect Phoenix to Tucson is an EXCELLENT idea!! With the tremendous 

growth in northern Pinal county (San Tan Valley) the residents in this area find it often easier 

to venture to Coolidge, Florence, Casa Grande, and the surrounding cities near Tucson, 

including Tucson than it is to travel to Phoenix or Scottsdale. This will be a great sustainable 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1. Specific station locations were not evaluated in detail as 

part of this Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level assumptions as part 

of the recommended Yellow Corridor Alternative necessary for 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -30

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

measure in reducing pollution and reduce our need to use our cars.

I imagine the stops would be strategically planned to make traveling to various destinations 

along the track accessible. For example, the city center of the names cities above as well as 

destinations close to government offices. Also, in Tucson I imagine several stops along the U 

of A campus and medical center would be planned. Also, if this track is put into place will 

there be an increase in public transit such as buses to take commuters to various destinations 

that may be farther away from the stops?

Please consider implementing this proposal as it will be a tremendous move forward in 

reducing our dependency on oil/gas and becoming a more sustainable metropolitan 

community!

operational planning did assume a station in San Tan Valley. 

2. Passenger Rail system connections to complementary

transit services were included in high-level operational 

assumptions for both the Yellow and Orange corridor 

alternatives.

9/16/15 Michael Van Os

I currently live in San Tan Valley. I grew up in Tucson where I have friends and family still. A 

commuter rail would be a great idea as long as it has convenient stops for the passengers. As 

of right now it costs me on average $17 in gas to drive to Tucson and back plus any driving I 

do while there. On average I will spend approximately $25 to $30 in gas for a trip to Tucson 

and back. The Yellow corridor would be the better option for me but appears to clearly be the 

best option of the ones identified. Lower cost, lower environmental impact, and more 

community access. There would need to be some sort of transportation available at the stops 

in all locations for the passengers. Perhaps Smart / mini cars for rent, bicycles, cabs, smart 

taxis, any number of these to ease the commute for the passengers that still have some 

traveling to do. The cost of the tickets as well as these alternative modes of transportation 

would need to be comparative to the cost of the trip by car.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The fare structure has not been defined yet. The many 

recommendations in your comment have been considered, 

but would require a more detailed level of analysis for full 

implementation.

9/16/15 Henry Harding Pierson Place Historic 

District

On the map there is the Green Alternative and yet there was no mention of it in the video. Is 

that intended or not? And what would be the purpose of one by the highway? In Germany 

there is a double decker train that transports cars with owners in the cars to and from one of 

the northern islands. Would there be a use for something like that? In the video was 

mentioned that there would be commuter trains that don't stop at each station. Would those 

trains be the high-speed commuter trains?

The Green Alternative was eliminated from consideration. It 

did not attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, did 

not effectively serve as many key population centers within 

the study corridor, and presented a high degree of potential 

cultural resource impacts. The concept of carrying vehicles 

would need to be addressed in later stages of study as 

appropriate. The express trains were assumed to be "higher 

speed" trains travelling up to 125 mph, but no technology has 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -31

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

yet been decided upon.

9/16/15 jkotzmanis@...

Smartest idea ever...been saying since 1992 this should have been done. Will be at meeting 

tonight.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 ambermarcov@...

I say do it. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 Brian LoManto

My name is Brian LoManto. I am a resident of Youngtown, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. I believe a 

rail line between Phoenix and Tucson is a fantastic idea. However, I also believe strongly that 

Phoenix and the metropolitan area need to do some major work on public transportation in 

our city. A subway or a major extension of the light rail is necessary. Phoenix is growing and in 

order to match this growth with services, a modern public transportation system capable of 

expansion and high volume needs to be built. But, with respect to the question at hand, yes, I 

believe a rail line between Phoenix and Tucson is a great idea and should be built.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 Mike A.

I would love to have a rail transportation option from Phoenix to Tucson. I live in Phoenix but 

I have relatives as well as business in Tucson so I make frequent trips. I am curious to know 

the expected transit time from Phoenix to Tucson. I am hoping this will be higher-speed rail 

and not just a conventional train.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The intent is that this would be a higher-speed service to 

effectively attract ridership and provide a viable alternative to 

the car.

9/16/15 Kyle Robinson

The best route is the yellow route. It provides a route with the highest existing development 

and potential customer base that could utilize the service. Thank you!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 Patricia Powers-Zermeno

Rail is a great idea but concerns remain high that ADOT will destroy more of the Historic 

District(s) in downtown Phoenix for a rail station in the central city. I-10 Tucson - Phoenix is 

busy and getting busier - but, let's not trade a train station for large sections of Historic 

Districts. ADOT already did that once. Do either alternatives include tearing out sections of 

Historic Districts in downtown Phoenix?

The Tier 1 EIS assumes a northern hub in Downtown Phoenix 

located adjacent to the existing UPRR right-of-way that runs

east-west between Jackson and Buchanan Streets. No National 

Register-listed historic districts are located within this area. 

Phoenix Union Station, which is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, could be a candidate station location and 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -32

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

could potentially be restored to its former use as a railroad 

depot. Appendix Table F-4 identifies historic districts within 

the corridor alternatives; within Phoenix, this includes the 

Garfield and Phoenix Union High School historic districts. 

However, because the corridor alternatives are one mile wide, 

specific alignments identified in a subsequent project-specific 

analysis may not infringe upon or affect these historic districts. 

Impacts to historic districts and properties would be analyzed 

if an alignment cannot avoid them. Federal funding for a 

passenger rail facility would require compliance with Section 

4(f) of the Transportation Act, which protects historic 

properties as well as recreational facilities and wildlife refuges 

from use by federally funded transportation projects.

9/16/15 Melissa Hackett

I'm all for more public transportation. My main concern is that the proposed yellow line 

literally goes through my backyard. I am concerned with noise/ traffic/ construction/ my 

property value. What is being done or will be done to minimize disturbances to thru 

neighborhoods that are on the line. Is it projected values of property will go up or down?

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is a mile-wide corridor. ADOT 

anticipates that an alignment alternative within this corridor 

would likely be located within or adjacent to the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, although other alignments 

may be considered. During subsequent planning and design 

stages, public coordination and outreach would continue at a 

more localized level to discuss potential impacts to 

neighborhoods and individual properties. A future passenger 

rail facility's impacts on the value of residential property 

adjacent to the railroad right-of-way would depend on a 

number of factors, including proximity to a station, which 

tends to bolster demand for and value of adjacent housing.

9/16/15 Adam Martinak

I would like to submit the following comment on this proposal. I believe this project is well 

worth pursuing but only if it is a high-speed rail project. I commuted from SE Tucson (Golf 

links/Harrison) for work entering the freeway at Valencia and I-10 and exiting at Baseline road 

in Tempe (To navigate to the GoDaddy campus). I commuted for about 18 months. Ultimately 

I had to take work back in Tucson at a reduced pay rate, for a smaller company because of 

the commute. I will leave the economic implications of the situation to someone more versed 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The conservative travel time estimate for the train using a 

diesel-electric locomotive (technology has not been selected)

is about 90 minutes, compared to what will become more 

than 3 hours with a car.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -33

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

than I am. What I want to emphasize is that a citizen of Tucson and Arizona, I would be 

thrilled to have access to the job market of the Phoenix metro, but I have to be able to get 

from TIA to Sky Harbor quickly. I would not utilize rail that ran at a comparable time frame to 

auto. In addition, I would attend all manner of events, including concerts and sports in PHX if I 

could hop a fast train from TIA to Sky Harbor. 

9/16/15 Jerry Spellman

I’m writing this as a concerned citizen and long-time advocate for SkyTran in Arizona. It is in 

response to ADOT’s request for comments related to the Tier 1 DEIS on potential high-speed 

rail corridors to connect Phoenix and Tucson. SkyTran is an innovative and breakthrough 

automated rail technology with patented and trade secret-protected, unique advanced 

transit know-how. It has developed its technology over the past decade under a NASA Space 

Act Agreement at the NASA Ames Research Center. I’m happy to say SkyTran is now ready to 

be deployed globally.

I attended the public comment meeting in Phoenix last evening and came away very 

disappointed that there was no discussion of next steps to be taken to make a Phoenix to 

Tucson high-speed rail line a reality. All I heard was there is no money for further study or 

planning, let alone to build a system, and all I saw were photos of “steel wheel on steel rail” 

trains. Where is the vision beyond identifying the Yellow Corridor as the preferred choice? 

Most folks seem to agree, as I do, that that’s the way to go. But what about the how to go 

(mode selection) and the how to pay for it (PPP)?

With this in mind, SkyTran is on the verge of taking off globally with a pilot system currently 

under construction in Tel Aviv, Israel, at Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), to be completed this 

year, to be followed by development of a commercial system within Tel Aviv to begin in 2016, 

and then on to other projects in Israel, India, France and the U.S.A.. Also, SkyTran just this 

week submitted a RFI proposal to the City of Baltimore, Maryland, to build a pilot system 

there. As ADOT and the FRA finalize this Tier 1 DEIS by the end of 2015, and SkyTran 

completes its pilot demo in Tel Aviv around the same time, Arizona needs to seriously 

consider adopting the SkyTran MagLev PRT alternative if and as it moves into the next phase 

of its high-speed rail EIS.

In brief, here is why: 

Over the last century, there have been few if any improvements in the way people move 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The primary purpose of the Tier 1 EIS is to select the preferred 

corridor for future passenger rail service. No technology has 

been proposed or selected in the EIS though relatively 

conservative assumptions have been made about the 

performance of a future system to forecast ridership and 

travel times, and estimate costs. In a subsequent study, a 

technology would be evaluated based on the best fit for the 

corridor and in consideration of costs and ridership potential.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -34

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

within cities. In fact, we move slower today in the city -- any city, anywhere -- than we did in 

the 1940s and 50s. To date and across the world, urban transportation has meant a mix of 

trains, buses and cars (bikes and walking can suffice only within a very limited range). 

Admittedly, today’s trains, buses and cars are better than those 50 years ago. Yet their core 

transportation architecture remains the same, requiring the same extensive surface area or 

exorbitant tunneling costs. As a result, the mobility in cities has failed to advance hand-inhand with the demands of a growing urban population -- a worldwide phenomenon. Thus, 

transportation is an unsolved urban-suburban problem that leads to a myriad of other 

downstream problems: Congestion, stress, health, accidents, pollution, carbon emissions and 

so on...All in all, the quality of life of citizens has decreased while urban population has 

increased. And that is because there can be no “smart cities” with stupid transportation.

In short, SkyTran offers freedom from schedules and fixed routes; it offers seated travel; 

personal space; no jostling with others; and no unnecessary stopping -- all this, in a “green” 

transportation envelope that is more environmentally compelling than hybrid or electric cars. 

Moreover, SkyTran travel is five to six times faster than the alternative. And using SkyTran is 

as easy as using an elevator: the user simply sits in a SkyTran vehicle and clicks on his 

intended destination on the system display. The vehicle is driven under computer control and 

is taken to the user’s destination non-stop within minutes. SkyTran enhances the appeal of 

public transport by making it more attractive than cars while helping the economy of the 

entire area by increasing productivity and saving time for everyone. With high quality public 

transportation, SkyTran will encourage and entice users out of their cars.

SkyTran is the only high-speed MagLev PRT system: it is optimized, robust, higher capacity, 

higher speed and lower costs. SkyTran’s superiority over earlier PRT systems and surface rail 

systems is measured in leagues, not increments. 

The pending global deployment of SkyTran should be a clarion call to action here in Arizona. 

Addressing transportation issues in modern cities is not just a matter of more investment or 

more planning, or more passenger trains on surface tracks; it requires better planning. It 

requires new technologies, and new ways of thinking about how best to move people and 

goods. SkyTran’s team has done that thinking.

In my estimation, SkyTran would likely be interested in replying to a future RFP from ADOT to 

design, build, operate and maintain a SkyTran MagLev Personal Rapid Transit (STMLPRT) 

system to connect and service the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas along the Yellow Corridor, 

and within the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) ROW. Indeed, SkyTran would likely be willing to 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -35

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

enter into preliminary discussions with AZDOT as soon as this phase of the EIS is completed to 

see what Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s) might be forged to finance such a major project. 

SkyTran has a Blue-Chip team comprised of NASA personnel; Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI) 

personnel; civil engineers from internationally respected Jenkins/Gales & Martinez 

Engineering; and an extensive list of accompanying talent prepared to enter into such 

discussions. Profiles of SkyTran’s leaders and technology partners are included at the end of 

the SkyTran overview I’m attaching to this e-mail letter.

The detailed overview describes the SkyTran technology and its advantages and should 

provide ADOT and the FRA with a thorough understanding of why Arizona and this nation 

need to get on board with SkyTran, and soon. The major differences in the costs of SkyTran 

(see charts below) as compared to trains for a Yellow Corridor high-speed rail line 

(approximately half) should be sufficient to interest you in carefully reviewing the entire 

overview document.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Tables attached to comment not included in this appendix refer to performance and cost of 

the described technology compared to a traditional option.] 

9/16/15 Ian and Marie Walker

Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Brilliant! Please proceed ASAP! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Sean Schupp

I am 100% behind the idea of high-speed rail between Tucson and Phoenix. The benefits that 

both cities would enjoy are boundless. Tucsonans could enjoy more chances for employment 

in Phoenix as well as more opportunities to enjoy sporting events and other entertainment 

without having to deal with annoyance of the trek between our two cities. I know that 

companies from China and Japan are competing for high-speed rail contracts all over the 

world and China is already in talks to make a track between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. This 

project would be small potatoes for these companies and competition is good for business 

making the price tag hopefully something achievable. Also it would be a good start for highspeed rail plans between cities like Phoenix to San Diego and Phoenix and Los Angeles which I 

believe would be logical next steps. One suggestion that I would have if I may be so bold 

would to make 2 sets of tracks 1 for one-way trips and 1 for several stops on the way. I think 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Financing for this project is not yet defined. This is intended to 

be a higher speed service, though the exact technology has 

not been selected. The assumptions used were for a 

conservative maximum operating speed of 125 mph. 

Preliminary track configurations have been developed in 

accordance with the best practices recommended by FRA and 

the passenger rail industry for the type of service expected to 

be offered. Upon more detailed analysis, this could change.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -36

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

also we should invest in the specialized track and trains that have the capability of going 170 

mph or more that China and Japan have all over their country side, at least for the one-way 

trip suggestion that had. I hope my feedback is appreciated and I look forward to further 

developments in practical infrastructure projects such as this. Also I would like to reiterate 

that I very much would like this to happen and would happy to pay the taxes for such a 

wonderful endeavor.

9/17/15 Nancy Fahringer

I would like to add my voice to support a Passenger Rail Service from Tucson to Phoenix. It's a 

great idea whose time has come.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Cynthia Yolland

We need to create a full transportation solution for the whole state. We need to make it 

easier for businesses to get workers to their locations. We need public transportation 

solutions.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Feruza Amanova

I fully support the construction of the Passenger Rail Corridor between Phoenix and Tucson. 

As our economy improves and our population grows there will be more people living in both 

cities and in many cities in between. The construction of the railway would allow for 

economic growth in smaller communities and most importantly would alleviate the traffic 

congestion which will absolutely become worse in the next several decades. Additionally, this 

will allow current commuters to have an alternative mode of transportation and improve air 

quality. Lastly, Arizona is one of few states with major cities that does not have a welldeveloped public transportation system (i.e. train system). If possible, I believe that the 

railway should connect or make it easy for people to connect to the Tucson street car and 

Phoenix light rail, making an easy commute between UA and ASU. Ideally, I'd like to board a 

train at UA and arrive at ASU.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Leo E. Spesard

The Corridor Aerial Atlas Appendix can't be opened with any program I've tried, either 

directly from the web or by downloading it.

The Atlas Appendix was divided into two files--Yellow Corridor 

and Orange Corridor--and re-posted after we were notified of 

this problem; this may have solved the problem for some 

users. Downloading the files to the C: drive should make them 

easier to open. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -37

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/17/15 Lisa Waite Bunker

As someone who travels to Phoenix for work, I can't wait for this to be finished! Full speed 

ahead, please!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Carolina M. Lopez

I have been highly in favor of a high-speed rail from Tucson to Phoenix for years. I am very 

happy to hear that my wish might come to fruition! Please add my name in favor of this 

project. I would also hope that it would be ADA compliant.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

All facilities and trains would be required to be ADA compliant 

in accordance with federal regulations.

9/17/15 Nancy Jean Sayers

I am writing in support of the yellow corridor. When it gets to the point of getting the right of 

ways, etc., I am encouraging you to strongly pursue the purchase/lease and restoration of the 

historic Union Station in Phoenix as the initial station.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations have not been decided as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS. However, station locations would be evaluated in 

detail in future phases of the study as part of subsequent 

project-specific planning and environmental analysis.

9/17/15 Lori Lehman

I recommend the orange route. It seems like this route would benefit the greatest percentage 

of population and it looks like it would go around the San Tan Mountains, with less 

environmental impact. It would also connect to Williams Gateway Airport, an important 

growing airport.

Your October 5, 2015 comment explains that you mistook the 

Orange Corridor Alternative for the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative, which you intended to support. Thank you for 

your comment and participation in this study. 

9/18/15 Nathanael Nerode

It all looks well analyzed. Please just fund, build and operate the train service already, on 

either route.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/18/15 Mark Andersen

The idea of a rail line is a good idea. I think it should at minimum connect both airports and 

ASU to UOFA. At the same time I think it's going the wrong direction. A connection from 

Phoenix to Vegas through flagstaff would be a potential opportunity for the state to make 

money after its initial investment. And if we are doing some kind of rail line between major 

cities a speed rail should be considered.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The purpose of the passenger rail system in the Tier 1 EIS is to 

link Tucson and Phoenix and to provide commuter service 

within the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, but it does not 

preclude other corridors north of Phoenix from being studied 

in the future.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -38

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/18/15 Robert Bowers

At the hearing on Tucson 9/16, almost every person making comments mentioned the need 

to have the rail proposal extend to the Tucson airport. It is extremely important that this 

project would intersect with existing public transportation including airports. Through 

political and corporate influence and interference, the SunRail project in the Orlando area 

lacks links to both its airports, Orlando International and the newer alternative of Sanford. At 

its southern end, the rail line ends about 10 miles from MCO. Someday, Tucson airport may 

represent a viable alternative for people north of Tucson. It certainly will if convenient 

transportation exists. I also think it is very important to consider an electrified line. Railroads 

represent an efficient use of fossil fuels as opposed to vehicles, but we also need to lessen 

our dependence on fossil fuels as well as the pollution and carbon contribution of fossil fuels.

Public input throughout the development of the Alternative 

Analysis (AA) and Draft Tier 1 EIS indicated airport access to be 

an important consideration as a feature of future passenger 

rail service. Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS from agencies, 

jurisdictions, and the public strongly urged that the study 

corridor extend to Tucson International Airport (TUS). The 

corridors analyzed for environmental impacts and other 

factors in the Tier 1 EIS, as established in October 2011 

through the NEPA scoping process, terminate in downtown 

Tucson. While a connection to TUS was not considered in the 

Tier 1 environmental analysis, the AA of the APRCS included 

coordination with Tucson, South Tucson, PAG and TUS related 

to airport connectivity, and public and stakeholder input were 

gathered regarding how best to extend passenger rail service 

from downtown Tucson to TUS. In addition, the conceptual 

ridership analysis developed for the AA included TUS at the 

southern end. Based on public and agency input, ADOT and 

FRA will commit to extending the study area to TUS for 

subsequent passenger rail studies. 

As noted elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT anticipates that a 

Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail system would be funded 

incrementally, and that construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific phasing of a future 

passenger rail system is not known at this time but will be 

determined as funding is allocated and as part of subsequent

NEPA review. 

Diesel-electric powered locomotion was used for cost 

estimating purposes as a basis for comparison; an electrified 

train would cost considerably more than diesel-electric

because of the additional infrastructure required. In 

subsequent planning and design, other locomotive 

technologies may be investigated.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -39

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/18/15 Barry Rosen

Dear Governor Ducey:

I attended the rail plan presentation by the staff of the DOT this past Wed, at the Tucson 

Convention Center, and thought it was done well. Their attempt to solicit input was well 

received.

My concern, and the reason that I am writing to you, is that there is a significant cost to this 

project that should begin with the primary initiative from our elected State Government

Representatives. Only one elected representative was in the audience to offer his support for 

the project.

This project will bring lasting value to the State of Arizona for many reasons. The power 

within your office is significant enough to begin a real dialogue about the importance of this 

rail line for the benefit of the public and private sectors of this state.

I am 75 years old and would like to be able to ride the first train to Phoenix. However, if I am 

unable to make it, I would like my 11 year old granddaughter to be able to ride it.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/18/15 Dorothy Johnson

The development of light rail connecting Tucson and Phoenix needs to be pursued 

aggressively before development interferes with route options. Congratulations on the work 

to date. Make sure that systems powered by alternative energy sources are explored, so that 

it would continue to be the preference 10 - 20 years hence. This would be an ideal location 

for a solar powered train. 

As a senior I'm progressively less comfortable driving to and from Phoenix. However as a 

member of the First Things First Pima North Regional Council, I want to continue engagement 

in related meetings in Phoenix. A train option would remove a major obstacle.

Thank you for your comments and participation. No 

technology has been selected for the passenger rail service 

yet. In a next phase of study, such as a subsequent projectspecific NEPA study along with the supporting analyses, a 

technology would be evaluated based on the best fit for the 

corridor and in consideration of costs and ridership potential.

9/18/15 Jeffery Sherman

Please consider the attached link or below text version as my comments on both Arizona 

Passenger Rail and Phoenix Commuter Rail. 

https://phxdowntown.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/phoenix-commuter-rail-the-beginning-ofa-plan/ Thank you Jeff Sherman 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The proposed passenger rail service that is the subject of this 

Tier 1 EIS would operate on independent track built to higher 

standards than required for freight movement and would not 

share line capacity with Union Pacific freight operations. Your
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -40

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Why Commuter Rail is important to Downtown Phoenix: 

Downtown Phoenix gets over 85 thousand daily commuters, plus thousands more for sports, 

concerts, and entertainment events. These individuals all add vibrancy to the core, but their 

cars limit us from obtaining a walk-able / bike-able urban environment. Downtown Phoenix 

will always be a commuter destination, and if it is to continue as the hub of commerce, 

knowledge, and entertainment then we need to add capacity at the same time we are trying 

to pedestrianize our streets. Light rail is helping to refocus our growth patterns along its 

route, and new developments will help create options for people who want to live/work in 

downtown, but this is not enough. Great cities serve as hubs for transportation networks. 

Phoenix and Downtown in particular needs to reassert itself as the epicenter of the region’s

transportation infrastructure network. Phoenix has to do this because the knowledge based 

economy is dependent upon bringing qualified people together, and for downtown 

businesses, it is imperative that their employees can get to and from work seamlessly. 

Therefore, if we are truly looking at ways to reduce our freeway congestion, grow downtown 

businesses, and create a comfortable safe pedestrian space, than commuter rail is the only 

high capacity option. A reasonable plan: MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) has 

been the forward leader on the topic conducting the 2010 study that helps to form the base 

for the suggestions below, but MAG has no way to implement projects.1 ADOT however, is 

studying Phoenix to Tucson intercity rail options, one of which (the Yellow option) 

corresponds with Phase 1 of my basic proposal. They are also studying high-speed passenger 

service to California and Nevada as part of the general state rail plan which corresponds with 

Phase 2 & 3. 2 What is envisioned below is a three layered passenger transportation network, 

Maricopa Commuter Rail, Inter-city regional rail, and an Inter-Airport transfer service all built 

upon the current heavy rail freight infrastructure. Because all of these can operate on the 

same improved track and because the current rail system sits where these connections need 

to be, the improvement costs are lower and the capacity is higher than many other 

transportation options. This also creates a shared maintenance and operations burden 

between multiple stakeholders. How to start: Map Phase 1 MAG’s proposed Southeast 

alignment runs directly from Downtown past Gateway Airport. Currently Transfers between 

airports requires a private shuttle van service at around $25. Connecting these airports by 

train allows Gateway airport and its budget regional airlines to effectively link into the 

national/international hub and spoke system. This allows Sky Harbor to focus more of its 

facilities on the economically vital national and international carriers while Gateway grows for 

suggestions about the phasing of the passenger rail project 

would apply to the next phase of studies when alignments are 

developed and financial planning options are evaluated. Some 

of your concepts extend beyond the specified scope of the 

Tier 1 EIS (Tucson to Phoenix), but are worthy of further 

analysis should there be a regional assessment of passenger 

rail services. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -41

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

budget service and East valley commuter flights. Reliable, baggage friendly, scheduled service 

is key to making transfers between airports work. While Gateway is currently struggling, it is 

still geographically positioned to serve as Sky Harbor's relief airport over the next 30 years 

and so it is critical that we plan that infrastructure connection now. While Airport to Airport 

train service typically only takes place in Tier 1 cities like London and Shanghai, Sky Harbor’s 

proximity to downtown and the strategic placement of Gateway, Goodyear and Tucson 

airports if joined effectively could create a robust transportation network for the region. 

Mag-Map MAG’s 2010 estimate for the track improvements needed on this Southeast section 

was $477 Million. This number also includes building 10 stations, which is not necessary 

because Commuter Rail stations can typically be privately funded or worked into a PPP 

(Private Public Partnership) thus reducing cost. Nonetheless, globally many large 

transportation projects actively seek voluntary investments or connection fees from major 

Airports, Stadium Districts, and Retail complexes, so a capital investment from the airport and 

other organizations should be expected in any future commuter rail plan, with the goal to 

provide a sufficient amount to help fund this first section. 3 ADOT’s focus then can be on the 

Gateway to Tucson corridor and maintenance assistance for the commuter section. The key is 

that Airport transfers and inter-city trips are not expected to be subsidized rates like normal 

public transport. A $20-25 fee is potentially very close to covering the maintenance and 

operational needs for Airport transfers on this line and a trip to Tucson would then be a bit 

higher. A proposal by the Airport and Phoenix to investigate the feasibility of such a project, 

and the initial prospect of some capital would likely be enough to politically bring Tempe, 

Mesa, Chandler and Gilbert into a realistic conversation about adding commuter rail along 

the same route. ADOT would then be able to latch on, selecting to extend this corridor to 

Tucson. The further hope being that Valley Metro joins as the transportation organizer with a

proven commuter rail operator (maybe BNSF) in charge of operations and day to day logistics. 

Why The South East line First. 

The passenger estimate for this route from Queen Creek to Downtown is 6450 boardings a 

day and MAG’s operation and maintenance estimate was $9 per boarding. There are many 

flaws to these boarding numbers given that tourists, special events, and potential transfers 

between airports, light rail, and other lines will add to the counts. Plus none of this takes into 

account generational or development shifts all likely to favor more passengers. Taking that 

the Rapid bus service currently costs $6.50 per round trip a $2-2.50 subsidy is reasonable and 

the $9 is well below the national commuter rail average of $11. Figuring in the unaccounted 

boardings I listed above, possible profit sharing with station retail/airport transfers, and the 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -42

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

reduced maintenance cost due to private stations, very little Federal or local tax assistance 

may be necessary for this starter section. For some practical, political, and financial reasons 

this Southeast commuter line should terminate at the State Capitol with a new private 

development station. There should be very little added cost for this extra two miles but the 

increased ridership and political statement is important. Historic Union station can be 

brought back to serve as both a commuter rail stop for the downtown government district 

and future regional intercity passenger rail hub incorporating commercial space. Also, a 

mixed use development/station somewhere between 4th & 7th Streets, possibly 

incorporated into the ballpark, would serve the sports and business district. 

PHX-TUC Airport Connector 

A typical PHX-TUC train would depart from Union station, stop at Sky Harbor to pick up plane 

transfers and more Tucson passengers. This train would then be a direct to Gateway, making 

the airport connection and bringing on board more intercity passengers. A stop in Eloy could 

potentially serve Casa Grande before Downtown Tucson and then Tucson Airport. The ‘local’ 

commuter line and freight lines can then run on the improved tracks behind this service. 

Phase 2 The next phase should be the Yuma line (Airport to Buckeye). Once again there are 

benefits to the Airport due to a possible connection with Goodyear Airport. While it is not 

used for passenger service at this time it has the potential as a west valley provider in the 

next 30 years. However, the major use I see for Goodyear Airport is in freight and cargo. It 

has one of the longest runways in the southwest, currently sits in the growing west valley 

warehouse transfer area and is close to the potential I-11 corridor (not that I like it). It is an 

asset with huge economic and employment potential and connecting it into the 

transportation network is essential to regional economic growth. The Yuma line also runs less 

than 2 miles south of the proposed I-10 light rail extension. If a solid alternative was 

presented there may be political room to stop the I-10 extension boondoggle. I am a huge 

light rail supporter but building light rail (a system designed for street activation) down the 

middle of an interstate for commuter traffic is a disastrous mistake for the system. Especially 

when we have heavy rail tracks so close. If $400 million of the $1.1 billion dollars slated for 

the I-10 west extension was used to create a commuter rail option; which is MAG’s estimate 

for this section, the other $700 million could go to the South Central light rail extension which 

is a far more suited light rail line (this also keeps the money in the same district). The Yuma 

line would also effectively replace the I-10 rapid bus service so while MAG shows this as a low 

boarding route it is the cheapest to build and has future potential. The East terminus for this 

line should be Sky Harbor which will also help with boardings and create a future direct 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -43

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

airport transfer to Goodyear. This would require sidings and double tracks through 

downtown (and I hope a 50 year plan to bring the downtown section below grade). This is the 

only way I can see preventing a terrible mistake with light rail, and building a solid 

transportation network. The flaw with MAG’s projection for this segment is in extending the 

line past Goodyear airport. The far west valley boardings are not sufficient enough to justify 

the maintenance and operations costs at this time. It is obvious that the study was trying to 

include all possible MAG members in the proposal, but any real project would have to be far 

more reasonable about costs/boardings. 

Phase 3 

One of MAG’s suggestions is for BNSF to be the system operator. If this was implemented 

then Phase 3 should be The Grand Ave commuter rail service. This line has the second 

greatest passenger potential and the tracks are BNSF owned. Unfortunately it is also the most 

expensive to implement, but between BNSF, Phoenix, Glendale, Peoria, Surprise, and the 

possibility of Federal support for a Las Vegas to Phoenix intercity line, adding this portion into 

an already operating commuter rail system becomes more feasible. Many of these Northwest 

cities already understand the economic growth potential of commuter rail and have been 

pushing for leadership and movement on the issue. (see compass study)4 

What does it mean for Downtown? 

MAG estimates 11290 boardings per day for these three lines. While I think this is a low 

estimate, and not all of these individuals will disembark in downtown this potentially 

captures 1 in 8 downtown commuters and could change the way we plan our urban 

environment. This also allows companies to feel comfortable locating offices and 

developments within our core because the parking and commute time become diminished 

obstacles and collaborative knowledge clusters become the draw. This will then allow us to 

look at our downtown streets more holistically. It is hard to have a political fight between the 

downtown community wanting slower pedestrianized streets, and commuters who have very 

few options in trying to get to work every day. There has to be a viable high capacity transit 

option for downtown commuters or unfortunately our city center will likely continue to be 

automobile dominated because of the political demands of suburbanites. 1. 

https://www.azmag.gov/Projects/Project.asp?CMSID=1076 2. 

https://www.azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PassengerRail 3. For examples see. 

Peterson George, Unlocking Land Values to Finance Urban Infrastructure (Washington D.C. : 

The World Bank 2009) 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -44

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

4.http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/articles/20131226grand-avenue-trainswest-valley-revitalization.html

9/19/15 Lindzie

My concern with this rail system is we have lived by other mass transit type rails and most of 

the stops are riddled with graffiti and crime. The rail lines have been dug down, which is again 

an added cost. You would also need to consider that through some areas there are still over 2 

lane roads that don't have automatic rail gates (mostly through Queen Creek) or have the 

capacity for mass transit to come through. Where would you put stops? I don't want them by 

my house, but it's a possibility as we still live by miles of open desert. Since I'm in proximity of 

the these rails, I'm concerned about the noise, the traffic congestion on these rail crossing, 

and if it would make the area look not as nice (due to crime and graffiti). I urge you to look 

closely at other areas in the country that have these types of systems and study the factors 

above (i.e. the Amtrak on the East coast, and even Front Runner in SLC).

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 1) 

FRA standard "quad-gates" have been assumed for all at-grade 

crossings associated with the passenger rail as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS. 2) Decisions regarding specific station locations have 

not yet been made. However, future phases of the study 

would take into account surrounding land use, neighborhood 

character, and proximity to activity centers when considering 

station locations as part of a subsequent analysis. 3) Other 

passenger rail systems throughout the country have been 

referenced continually throughout this Tier 1 EIS process, 

including Amtrak service and the UTA Frontrunner.

9/19/15 Veera Kasanneni

Waiting for the implementation of yellow route. Passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson 

is very much required as early as possible.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/20/15 L. Bredo

I would like to see transportation rail between Tucson and Phoenix Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/20/15 Sean D. Sweat Thunderdome 

Neighborhood 

Association for NonAuto Mobility

Our organization is unable to find consensus on which route would be best, but we are 

unanimously and enthusiastically supportive of passenger rail from Phoenix to Tucson. Please 

build it as soon as possible so people without cars can have the same mobility afforded to 

those with.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/21/15 Troy Kicklighter

I strongly support the proposed rail line. My family and I visit the Phoenix couple times a year 

and take Amtrak. It would be so awesome to travel to other areas by using continues rail 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

System operators, such as Amtrak, would be evaluated in 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -45

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

service. Please listen to those of us who visit your cities in Arizona to visit our families and to 

attend football games there.

future phases of the study.

9/22/15 Michael Fenlason

This is a very exciting opportunity for the State of Arizona and I hardily support this project Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/22/15 Chase M. Walman

I am writing the below comments to reflect my support for a passenger rail system between 

Tucson and Phoenix. A passenger rail system between Phoenix and Tucson should be 

invested in, and with future growth and predicted congestion in the near future, such a rail is 

justified. While BRT in theory may seem like an attractive proposition (due to initial cost), it is 

my belief that BRT would not be the permanent solution necessary in this corridor (due to the 

carrying capacity, maintenance concerns, problems associated with pulsing, and likely 

objection of rededicating lanes). The preferred yellow alternative would be the most 

beneficial in terms of number of people served within the one mile corridor, opportunities for 

T.O.D., utilization of the already established Union Pacific Railroad R-O-W, and mitigation of 

environmental impacts. While I feel that this draft EIS has been thorough in dispelling any 

concerns regarding mitigating impacts, I still wanted to take this opportunity to further 

comment on the preferred yellow alternative. First, in regards to the Tempe alignment (figure 

7.2) still open to comment, I would recommend that the corridor running N-S (West of Mill 

Ave), turning E-W (North of Broadway Rd) be the preferred Tempe alignment. This is thought 

because it would be in walking distance to the future Tempe Street Car and in closer 

proximity to the light rail already in place. Ideally such an alignment would improve upon 

accessibility both locally and regionally. In addition, noise disturbances are talked about at 

great length with the assumption that the same quiet zones enforced in parts of Phoenix and 

Tempe (for freight) would be applicable to this rail. It is my recommendation to further 

mitigate noise disturbances (especially near residential) that these quiet zones be lobbied for 

at every single grade crossing (near residential) For future EIS studies, it would also be helpful 

to receive additional information on how this rail would impact the other prominent inter-city 

transit: the light rail. Can a reduction in its inter-city ridership (especially Phoenix- Mesa) be 

anticipated with this competing rail? Thank you for taking the time to read the above, and 

allowing me the opportunity to give my input.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 1. 

A bus rapid transit alternative was evaluated in the 

Alternatives Analysis but eliminated from further 

consideration as part of this Tier 1 EIS. 2. Specific design and 

operating decisions, including sound walls and quiet zones, 

would be evaluated in future phases of the study as part of a 

subsequent planning and environmental analysis.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -46

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

9/23/15 Rhonda Elliott

I would like a copy mailed to me if possible. I would like as much info as I can get, very 

excited.

The DEIS is available electronically and can be downloaded as 

a PDF from the ADOT website.

http://www.azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PassengerRail

/deis

9/23/15 Ryan Sweeney

I fully support any and all mass transit initiatives in Phoenix and the rest of the US! Anything 

we can do to get people riding mass transit as opposed to driving is always a good thing: for 

traffic levels, the environment and human health. Build it!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/24/15 Jason Kedmenec

I strongly support and encourage the implementation of passenger rail service between 

Phoenix and Tucson. It’s vital that we build this option of transit to enhance our 

infrastructure and economy. It will also draw strong ridership once completed especially in 

the Yellow Preferred Route. I also encourage leaders to explore public, private, or both 

sources of funding. As a lifelong Arizona native and having commuted between both major 

cities, I know how congested this corridor has become. Also, this will increase options for all 

socio-economic backgrounds but also serve for those who do not require a car in their home 

cities to travel to the other major city for family visits, work, or pleasure. It's also a viable back 

up corridor linking both cities in case another mode like freeway or air travel were 

temporarily interrupted. Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific funding options, including public-private-partnerships, 

would be evaluated in future phases of this study as part of a 

subsequent planning and environmental analysis.

9/26/15 Monty Morgen

Yes, it may be many years before this project ever gets completed, but here's one thing to 

consider. I am physically handicapped and transportation options are much more limited. 

Especially during the weekends and late nights, i.e. 8 PM or later. I would greatly like to be 

part of this portion of the project that otherwise may be overlooked.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific decisions regarding hours of operations would be 

determined in future phases of the study as part of a 

subsequent planning and environmental analysis.

9/27/15 Wendy Greess

I commute each week from Phoenix to Tucson. I have been doing this for the past 5 years. I 

leave on Monday morning and have a small apartment in downtown Tucson and return to 

Phoenix at the end of the work week. I would commute daily on a high-speed train if it had 

WIFI. As long as the train has WIFI, I would be able to work each way enabling me to 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific amenities offered on board the train itself would be 

evaluated during later phases of the study as part of a 

subsequent planning and environmental analysis.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -47

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

complete my work and still live with my family in Phoenix.

10/1/15 William Pearson

Hi, thanks for inviting the public to put in their input on the Tucson-Phoenix passenger rail. I 

for one am for this Tucson Phoenix Rail. For one reason, I LOVE trains, very, very much and 

have been before I was an adult. And I don't just like watching them, I also like to ride inside 

them too, preferably at-grade trains though, and I've been riding trains since I was 2 and 

living in Germany and had my very first Amtrak ride when I was 5, from the town of Benson 

to Chicago! Train riding is so much fun, to me more fun that riding in cars, buses, and 

airplanes... to me, I know others prefer these other modes of transportation and to each one 

his. For another, I think there should be a train running to and from Tucson and Phoenix for 

safety purposes. Not only will it get you between the two metropolitan cities faster but it's 

safer than riding between Tucson and Phoenix, especially Tucson and Casa Grande due to 

those dust storms and it's very sad to see and hear about all these car accidents and deaths 

occurring on that stretch of Interstate 10, I remember passing through an accident on my way 

from Casa Grande to Tucson back in January 2012. I mean I am aware that riding passenger 

trains between Tucson and Phoenix isn't 100% safe and can have its foibles, even in the dust 

storms, but I feel it's safer than riding on I-10. Though I don't mind riding between Tucson 

and Phoenix on I-10, it would be really great to ride a train to and from Phoenix, be it the 

express trains or the local trains, I'll ride either, maybe both just for the experience and sheer 

joy of it, as long as there are trains running between Tucson and Phoenix, which there should 

have been a long time ago. And be nice to ride trains other than Amtrak in the U.S. (although 

I've ridden the Light Rail in Minneapolis and the Tucson Streetcar (I live in but am not from 

Tucson, I'm from Indiana and the city I was born in has lots of tracks and one passenger rail, 

NICTD, although Amtrak runs through there too but doesn't stop there.) I mean if we don't 

get a train between Tucson and Phoenix, that's okay, but I'd really like to see that. What I 

don't look forward to though, but I won't try to stop it, is the possible elimination of the 

railroad grade crossings. I'm one of the few people on this earth that actually likes railroad

crossings, the pretty flashing red lights, the melody of the bells, and the crossing gates and 

the little lights on them, those make my day and make my life more interesting. I mean if I 

have to choose between the crossings and the passenger rail, although I hope at least a few 

crossings will still exist, and with a 4-Quadrant Gate System, so I'm not selfish, I'll take the 

passenger rail. Before I finish, let me throw this out to you: How does a train from Tucson to 

Sierra Vista sound? I know there are no tracks in Sierra Vista and Sierra Vista is a smaller town 

and out of the way between Tucson and Phoenix but it'd be nice if trains ran there too, and 

Thank you for your comments and participation in this study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -48

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

maybe to Bisbee or Douglas. Stops should include Rita Ranch, Vail, Mescal, Benson, St. David, 

Curtiss, Tombstone or Whetstone, Huachuca City and then Sierra Vista. Then if successful, 

Hereford, Palominos, Naco, then Bisbee or to Double Adobe, Portlville, and Douglas... and 

from there freight trains can run into Mexico and not just through Nogales, but limited freight 

train service (note, this is all just wishful thinking and a mere opinion but an idea I thought I'd 

throw out. I also used to live in Sierra Vista but moved to Tucson to live in a railroad town, 

something Sierra Vista used to be.) And how about passenger rail to Nogales and back again 

(including Sahuarita, Green Valley, Tubac, and Rio Rico?... using the existing Nogales Branch 

Line) Again, just my opinion, I understand if none of these can happen. But I hope, if nothing 

else, there's a passenger train between Tucson and Phoenix, and if it ever comes about, I'll 

totally ride it! And hopefully be able to connect to the Valley Metro Light Rail there (I'm yet to 

ride that.) That's my input. Thank you all for reading this.

10/1/15 William Pearson (Second 

Comment)

Dear Reader(s),

I am writing in regard to the Tucson-Phoenix Passenger Rail, my support, my questions, and 

concerns.

I am totally into the idea of passenger rail running between Tucson and Phoenix (and I did 

leave input on that, and thank you again for inviting the public to do so, I learned that from 

watching KGUN9 News.)

I would love to see passenger trains run between Tucson and Phoenix, and of course ride in 

them as I favor and enjoy passenger rail travel to all other modes of transportation, including 

air travel. And not just actual trains but I also enjoy riding trolleys (Light Rail and Streetcar, 

any railway transportation but at-grade preferably) I'm also a train fan (even have toy train 

and model train sets). And I think this is a safer way to travel than on Interstate 10 due to the 

dust storms.

I am also for this because I miss riding trains on a regular basis like I used to do back when I 

lived in Germany when I was 2-4 years old back in 1988-1990 and I've love to experience that 

here in Arizona instead of having to go all the way back to Europe just to do that, or move to 

other US states and cities like Baltimore, Chicago, and L.A. to name a few, Arizona is my home 

and though I kind of like Arizona just the way it is, I would like to see passenger rail run in 

Arizona. And not just between Tucson and Phoenix as well as within Phoenix and within 

Thank you for your comments and participation in this study. 

Passenger rail services are assumed to run on a new, 

independent track and not share the UP Railroad track to 

avoid conflicts with freight traffic. It would be built to tighter 

tolerances to accommodate a much higher level of 

performance than currently possible with freight trains in the 

U.S. Most of the line would operate at-grade, but grade 

crossings would be installed over time. The assumptions for 

this study are for a few grade separations. Others could be 

added over time. For at-grade crossings the operating 

characteristics of the passenger trains would require fourquadrant gates, which prevent drivers from illegally driving 

around lowered gates, to maximize safety. Some of the 

crossings in the Tucson area are being redesigned to cross 

over the freeway. Those are being designed to eventually 

accommodate a passenger rail line. Others that already go 

over the cross-street would be expanded to accommodate the 

new services.

There is a strong desire in the Tucson area to extend the 

passenger rail line to TUS. This makes sense as part of the 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -49

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Tucson, but also, but this is just a mere opinion and my personal fantasy, trains between 

Tucson and Nogales and between Tucson and Sierra Vista (with stops in Rita Ranch, Vail, 

Mescal, Benson, St. David, Curtiss, Huachuca City, and Sierra Vista, and if you want to go 

further, Hereford, Palominos, Naco, and Bisbee or more recommended, Douglas (very limited 

service between Sierra Vista and Douglas though but regular service between Tucson and 

Sierra Vista, which is admittedly a small town but a growing city and I lived there back in 

1990, 1991, and 1999-2002)

Anyway, getting serious, some things I am wondering about for the passenger rail, if it ever 

comes to life, and I do have a few concerns.

I am wondering, if this passenger rail does come into existence, if it will run on Union Pacific's 

tracks, or if new track will be built alongside it (probably the latter.)

Now I spoke to Union Pacific about this myself before and was replied to by Zoe Richmond, in 

case you know her, and she told me Union Pacific isn't doing the Passenger Rail, ADOT is, 

which is one reason why I'm contacting you. Though I am totally into the idea of passenger 

trains running between Tucson and Phoenix, my worry and concern was passenger trains 

running on Union Pacific's tracks and Union Pacific's freight train traffic is supposed to 

increase if not sky-rocket, which I also look forward to because I'm a rail-fan, or train 

enthusiast and I like to see trains go by railroad crossings, especially the ones with flashing 

red lights and gates and sometimes I go to the railroad crossings in Tucson just to see that, 

and hear the bells. Watching the crossing signal and gate lights flash makes my day. More on 

the grade crossings later.

But with freight train traffic supposing to increase, and running passenger trains on those 

tracks too, though I wouldn't be as against that idea or as concerned about that idea if freight 

train traffic wasn't supposed to increase, my concern is the overcrowding and overburdening 

on Union Pacific's tracks. I mean train traffic is supposed to be (my guess) 80, maybe 90 trains 

a day. And I know BNSF, which runs through places like Holbrook, Flagstaff, and Williams, 

runs a so many trains a day on its track, and I would like to see that happen here in Tucson 

too. But also, passenger trains, namely commuter or regional passenger trains are supposed 

to be frequent as well and to run passenger trains on a track with 80 to 90 trains a day is a 

huge concern and cause lots of interference between the freight and passenger trains, which 

have to stop at stations and it could block the way of freight trains, which don't, or at least 

shouldn't, have to stop as much. And if I'm not mistaken, freight trains could disrupt and 

delay passenger trains. Plus, let's not forget the increased wait time and frequent stops at the 

larger system, but is not the subject of the present Tier 1 EIS 

document. It would be evaluated in detail in subsequent

environmental document(s).

The passenger rail service would offer both commuter and 

intercity services. The corridor would be organized to permit 

faster moving trains to pass local trains at stations or at 

designated double-track locations designed to eliminate 

conflict points along the route.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -50

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

railroad crossings, especially on major roads (e.g. Ruthrauff Road, Ina Road, both of which are 

supposed to be grade separated anyway) Tangerine Road, and Cortaro Farms Road, and I'll 

add Main Avenue. I'd at 6th Street and 9th Avenue too since that is a highly used crossing and 

I go to that crossing more than any other crossing in Arizona, but that's to be grade separated 

too, at least 6th Street is supposed to be, 9th Avenue is supposed to be turned into a 

pedestrian and bike at-grade crossing as is 7th Avenue according to Downtown Links when 

they expand Barrazza-Aviation Parkway from Broadway to I-10, something else I'd like to 

have happen.) My other concern with this is that passenger trains are supposed to run faster 

than freight trains (I honestly don't know how much faster, you or someone would have to 

tell me) and it could cause a rail-traffic jam or worse.

What might be done though is the building of new tracks alongside the Union Pacific tracks, 

which is probably what is planned to do anyway am I right? (And I too am for the yellow 

alternate rather than the orange, I don't know why for sure I just am, possibly because it’s

least expensive and runs along the existing UP line, but I'll take either.) 

It would probably be a better idea to build new track instead of using Union Pacific's tracks, 

that way the freight train traffic won't be disrupted and the existing U.P tracks wouldn't be 

disrupted and the passenger trains can stop at stations as the freight trains safely pass by.

One question I have is, is this going to be fully double-tracked or single tracked with side 

tracks? I honestly prefer the full-double track but I'll take the single track with side-tracks, 

whatever ADOT thinks is best.

Another question I have, will this line be generally at-grade (running on the ground) or 

completely grade-separated like the Bullet Trains in Japan? I would prefer at-grade to tell the 

truth, but if it is at-grade, I know there are going to be some grade separations, and I did read

that at-grade crossings will not be built (I do wish there would be but I understand why not: 

for safety and convenience).

I wonder this, will all the crossings be grade-separated or will there be some at-grade 

crossings, even on the not-as frequently used roads which do cross at-grade on Union 

Pacific's crossings? And if there are grade crossings, will they be shared with Union Pacific? 

(This is what I honestly hope for, but to try to show I don't want to be selfish, there doesn't 

have to be that many crossings on the passenger rail line, maybe just four or five or ten and 

grade separations everywhere else. And if grade crossings are in use, I am recommending 4-

Quadrant Gate crossings, I highly prefer gated crossings to non-gated crossings, even 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -51

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

crossings with just flashing lights and a like gated crossings more than gate-less crossings.

I'll admit to you that although I like grade crossings, the problem with grade crossings is, 

although the passenger trains would operate on a separate track than the existing UP tracks, 

the tracks would have to go from 2-tracks (at least between Tucson and Picacho or Eloy) to 

three, four or even five tracks, making it take a little longer to get off the crossing, and the 

more tracks on a crossing riskier. And the constant activation of the crossing warning devices, 

activating like every 10 to 15 minutes (which I have almost no problem with but the masses 

will,) having to wait for the sky-rocketing amounts of long freight trains going by, and 

sometimes you get a second train, with either two freight trains passing at the same time 

(which is entertaining to me) or a second train starting to cross before or after the first one 

finishes.) And then with the passenger train tracks in place next to the freight-train-heavy 

tracks, that's more trains to wait for, although these trains are supposed to be shorter and 

faster.) But it will be a short time between trains for vehicular traffic to cross, plus some 

thoughtless drivers or impatient drivers try to outrun and beat the trains, even damaging the 

crossing gates doing so (which I really hate).

But like I said, if there are grade crossings, even if there are just a few, I highly propose 

strongly-gated crossings, using the 4-Quadrant gate system, or if you want, using B&B AMAR 

Safety Barrier Gates or Vehicle-Arresting Gates 

http://www.energyabsorption.com/products/products_stopgate_rail.asp (I prefer the 4-

Quadrant system to be honest,) or the Safe Crossings Barrier Gates http://www.safecrossings.com/ (these are gates that extend as they descend and retract as they ascend)

I don't have much expectation of the passenger rail building new crossings separate from 

Union Pacific's crossings, I expect crossings outside of Union Pacific's will be strictly grade 

separated, even if built alongside U.P.'s existing tracks. But I do wonder if the passenger rail 

shares crossings with UP, will there be some grade crossings and the rest grade separated 

(which I'm okay with) or will Union Pacific have to sacrifice all its crossings, even the ones not 

used as much? I admit if U.P decides to grade separate its crossings for the passenger rail, it 

will be much safer and less costly for everyone, including me.

Now some of UP's crossings are already grade-separated like Prince Road and Twin Peaks 

Road, or will be (like Ruthrauff Road and Ina Road, I don't know if Cortaro Farms Road and 

Tangerine Road will be too) so the passenger rail should be able to pass over or under those 

roads. I am also wondering about the crossings on the roads that terminate at the eastfrontage road since they don't see as much vehicular traffic. Those are the ones that should 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -52

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

have 4-Quad gates if not grade-separated.

I'm also wondering how the passenger rail will pass grade separated roads like Grant Road, 

Miracle Mile, and Speedway Blvd to name a few.

Getting away from grade crossings, now will this passenger rail stop in northwest Tucson? Or 

will this stop at the Amtrak Depot in Downtown Tucson? I also hear it's supposed to stop at 

Tucson International Airport, is that a good idea?

I would like to know what is to take place should this passenger rail actually come into 

existence and operation, such as sharing track with UP or having separate track alongside UP, 

if it will be partially or fully grade separated (other than at crossings), will there be at least 

just a few crossings or absolute grade separation, and if the passenger rail track will run on 

single track with side tracks or be fully-double tracked.

One more thing I'm wondering about is how will local passenger trains, which make frequent 

stops, run and cooperate with express passenger trains, which have limited stops?

Whatever is going to go on or is supposed to go on, please know that I would like to see 

passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix with or even without grade crossings. And I 

would like this as an alternate to travel on I-10 and plus I enjoy train travel over all else and 

would really love to experience this, and be able to take trains by myself (without the need of 

a parent or guardian though I'm 30 but admittedly autistic)

Thanks for reading this and for your time. I will also send this through info@azdot.gov and 

hope to hear from you and get answers. 

10/2/15 Ryan Steving

My family and I have lived in Queen Creek for the last 6 years and in the East Valley for more 

than 10. We often commute to Tucson to see family and travel everyday to work in Phoenix. 

The "yellow" route through Queen Creek would be our preferred route, and we think it would 

benefit our great little town and the state the most.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/2/15 Derek Neighbors

The route going through Queen Creek seems to offer the most economic impact long term. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -53

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/2/15 Elaine Block

Please consider using the yellow line when choosing routes between Phoenix and Tucson. I 

live in Queen Creek and would use the train frequently if there was a stop here.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/2/15 Marvin Block

The yellow line would be advisable as it cost less and provides more economic benefits to the 

traveling public. A stop in Queen Creek would provide residents with alternatives for access 

to the valley and reduce the number of cars on valley roadways.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/2/15 Jimmy

I support the yellow line alternative to the passenger rail system. Queen Creek is becoming a 

very important area for Arizona. We've got a major airport and many new developments with 

residents helping Arizona grow. We've got the rail infrastructure already in place and many 

commuters would benefit from this proposal. Please consider the yellow line alternative and 

all the benefits it would bring to this growing community.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/2/15 sab0623@...

Hello! Thank you for posting the study and plans for the passenger rail corridor. I just moved 

to Eastern Queen Creek after living in Southern San Tan Valley for 7 years and I work in 

Florence. I see daily the need to mitigate the traffic congestion in that general area and 

beyond. Navigating the roads to just get through that area to a highway is slow and 

frustrating. With the increasing population there, traffic is heavy and patience is slim. My 

home is approximately 2 miles from the proposed yellow route existing railway. The location 

of a station in Queen Creek would be convenient for me, regardless of the exact spot along 

that line. It does come to mind that this could potentially be a heavily used spot for the 

commuters of QC and STV, and is there a place that would allow sufficient parking to 

accommodate the travelers? As for me, I would need to see the proposed times for the trains 

to evaluate if this would be a benefit. I have neighbors who work in downtown Phoenix, and 

have considered it myself but for the commute. I do believe that anyone commuting daily to 

Phoenix or Tucson would embrace this mode of transport, if the commutes are swift and 

connections are easily made to their ultimate destinations.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations were not evaluated in detail as part 

of this Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level assumptions as part of 

the recommended Yellow Corridor Alternative necessary for 

operational planning did assume a station in Queen Creek. 

Station locations and amenities, such as parking, would be 

evaluated in future phases of the study as part of a 

subsequent project-specific environmental analysis.

10/3/15 Douglas Stanfel

Good Day, The yellow would be the best route to start Arizona’s Rail system. The tracks 

already exist and are on a hardly used route used by UP or BNSF. Also this route services 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Although specific design decisions would be evaluated in 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -54

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

many major cities such as the Fast growing southeast area and could easily be tied in with the 

new light rail system. In my past job I had a chance to use several rail system in CA, NM, UT 

and eastern corridor. Having lived in east valley for over 58 years it is a shame how far behind 

AZ is in rail transit.

future phases of the study as part of a subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis, connections to Valley Metro light 

rail and Sun Link street car have been assumed as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS study.

10/5/15 Lori Lehman

I accidentally chose the wrong option, orange, in my previous submittal. I meant to choose 

the YELLOW option, which DOES include a stop in Queen Creek. Thank you, Lori Lehman

Your September 17, 2015 comment was intended to advocate

the alternative that includes a stop in Queen Creek, which is 

the Yellow Corridor Alternative. Thank you for your comment 

and participation in this study. 

10/5/15 Diane Hague

Looking at the final two options, I believe the yellow route would provide more traffic relief 

to crowded roads and connect higher density population centers thereby maximizing usage.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Amy Shipp

I think letting it go through Queen Creek/San Tan would be the best route for the state. The 

orange route just goes around everything and doesn't make much sense while the yellow 

actually goes through cities and would be good for that cities economy.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Jannine Hedger

Absolutely! I hate driving all the way to Tempe and would take the train in a heartbeat. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 tjalexander@...

Do residents really want the Yellow Route that goes through the Town of Gilbert? Does 

following the US 60 make more sense and least neighborhood impact?

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is the ADOT recommended 

alternative as part of this Tier 1 EIS, based on a combination of 

technical analysis, public comments, and agency input 

gathered during the Tier 1 EIS process. Public comments have 

favored the Yellow Corridor Alternative over the Orange 

Corridor Alternative.

10/6/15 Mike Smith

I vote NO on the rail line stopping in Queen Creek. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -55

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/6/15 Shaina Nelson

No. Not a good idea. Everywhere I've lived where there was public transit it was hardly used 

by people that actually lived in the rural parts. It was used by criminals and drug users. 

Became plagues and run down eyesores on nearby communities.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Elizabeth Corona

I think it's a great idea! It will bring business actually more business to the queen creek and 

San tan valley areas. I think the yellow route is prefect! We need something exciting over 

here!....

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Laury Hart

I am for the Yellow route. Being out in Queen Creek / San Tan Valley we have no public 

transportation. This route will offer easy commute both northwest into PHX and well as SE to 

Tucson. Getting our kids to college & university is huge. Also following the UP PHX sub will be 

less expensive as the rails are already in place. We have been waiting for a long time. Really 

looking forward to riding this train.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT has coordinated with the Union Pacific Railroad 

throughout this Tier 1 EIS. The proposed passenger rail service 

that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would operate on 

independent track built to higher standards than required for 

freight movement, and would not share line capacity with 

Union Pacific freight operations.

10/6/15 Diana Martin

I am a resident of Queen Creek. I just a map of the proposed light rail going to Tucson and I 

am very concerned. I do not like this idea because this town would definitely lose its small 

town feel. I realize it may bring in more revenue but I feel it would bring in more transients 

and questionable individuals that I left California for. Will there be houses lost due to space 

for construction as well? I feel home values will decrease as well. My vote is NO, respectively. 

I would like to thank those involved in trying to find alternatives to get down to Tucson. I 

would never use the light rail anyhow. Thank you for your time in reading this.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) This Tier 1 EIS evaluated passenger rail alternatives, an 

entirely different system than light rail or modern streetcar. 

Passenger rail is characterized by larger vehicles, faster travel 

speeds, and greater distance between stations when 

compared to light-rail. 

2) Decisions regarding property acquisition have not yet been 

made, but would be evaluated in future phases of the study as 

part of a subsequent environmental analysis. 

3) Proximity to rail transit stations has been shown to increase 

property values in various regions throughout the country.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -56

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/6/15 Brad Schreiber

Yellow route is my vote....I'm in SE Gilbert and would love the convenience and traffic that 

the rail would provide.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 David Shutan

I wholeheartedly support the proposed yellow route. Lack of public transportation in this area 

(Gilbert and points further east and south) is woefully lacking. This would be a huge step in 

the right direction.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Jennifer Snyder

I would love to have the yellow line. I live in the southeast valley and have several events in 

downtown Phoenix. It would be so beneficial to have a rail system where I am not bogged 

down in traffic. Additionally, my husband works in downtown Phoenix and it would be 

wonderful to be able to commute downtown via rail. The impact it would make for 

communities like Queen Creek would be incredible as it would be viable for a family to live 

there and work in either Tucson or Phoenix. I fully support the yellow line.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Stephanie Zinn

Please please bring passenger rail to Queen Creek!! With the Gateway airport, ASU Poly and 

the Apple campus nearby in Mesa, this would help reduce traffic congestion in the future. It 

would also help home values in an area that still hasn't fully recovered from the housing 

crash.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Carmel Robinson

It would be great to have public transportation from Queen Creek to both Phoenix and 

Tucson! Many times I have wanted to go to an event in Mesa or Phoenix but don't. My car is 

getting as old as I am and I don't trust the reliability as much as I used to. The Tucson area has 

been out of reach to me for ages for the same reason. All things considered this project 

would have a positive high impact on the ability to get around to a larger geographic area. I 

would definitely be a customer!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Richard Harrison

My first choice would be the yellow route; second choice is the orange route. I know I would 

use it since both would go by my place of employment and would save me from driving my 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -57

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

vehicle 60 miles round trip each day.

10/6/15 Andres Martinez

Greetings I am in support of the Yellow Alternative Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Constance Halonen

I am in support of the yellow line. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Rachel Pollack

I vote for the ORANGE route. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 George Easton

This is wonderful and I look forward to its fruition. I hope it goes through Queen Creek as the 

Rittenhouse line is a natural route that could link San Tan Valley with the rest of the valley 

and beyond. Great forward thinking!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Mary Olson

Love the "yellow" alternative. Homes are less expensive south of Chandler. Those who live 

south of Phoenix would have access to better jobs with transportation to those jobs. Good for 

the whole state.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Joyce Aurich

Yellow line please. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Ladypsylocke@...

Orange please. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Luke Simmons

I hope you will seriously consider the Yellow Alternative. As a resident of Queen Creek and a 

leader in the community, I believe that the Yellow Alternative would provide a great deal of 

relief and support to what is already the fastest growing part of Arizona. Many families would 

experience less commuter stress and more time together if this route were approved. 

Additionally, the Yellow would be less expensive, given the existing rail infrastructure that 

exists.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT has coordinated with the Union Pacific Railroad 

throughout this Tier 1 EIS. The proposed passenger rail service 

that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would operate on 

independent track built to higher standards than required for 

freight movement, and would not share line capacity with 

Union Pacific freight operations.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -58

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/6/15 muttsx2@...

The orange alternative makes the best sense. The route would be best for Coolidge, Florence, 

San Tan Valley, Gold Canyon and Apache Junction where there are no freeways out that way. 

It's difficult enough for residents in the far east valley to travel the congested roadways with 

little options to travel north. At peak travel times, Hunt Highway and Gantzel are heavily 

traveled. The orange alternative would alleviate the traffic traveling North while providing 

Queen Creek residents a short distance to travel to pick up the line.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Timothy Snyder

I would like the yellow line because it has the smallest amount of environmental impact. I 

believe a passenger rail would be a great asset to the community.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Rosa Sumpter

I am a member of the Queen Creek community and wanted to put my input in regards to the 

Passenger Rail that you are considering putting through our town! I think it is a GREAT idea 

and would help bring more people to our town! There is so much to see and history in our 

town revolved around agriculture that many families as well as schools put on their list for 

field trips, this would be a great way to get around for community members that have long 

commutes to and from phoenix area as well. So, I would say YES – let’s do it! Look forward to 

it.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/6/15 Rachel Pollack

I would like to comment on the proposed train route and say that I would NOT like the train 

to be routed through Queen Creek. There is too much traffic and noise here already, and it 

will not garner carpooling passengers because of logistics.

Based on forecasts, it is likely that congestion will grow in the 

area between Tucson and Phoenix, including in Queen Creek. 

This study considers how to manage such congestion by 

offering a different choice for travel.

10/6/15 Maureen Schubert

I would like to express my support for the Yellow Line of the Passenger Rail Corridor Study. I 

live in Gilbert and believe this proposed route would bring increased economic vitality to the 

community, as well as make it easier to travel around the state for work and tourism. Thank 

you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing about funding proposals very soon.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -59

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/7/15 B J

Please use the yellow line, it will allow more people access to it. The red line seems to skip all 

the small towns and seems to be where there are less people.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/7/15 Josh Spencer

I simply wanted to voice my support of the Passenger Rail having a stop in Queen Creek. I 

work in downtown Phoenix and would take the Rail to work and also to the airport.

Specific station locations were not evaluated in detail as part 

of this Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level assumptions as part of 

the recommended Yellow Corridor Alternative necessary for 

operational planning did assume a station in Queen Creek. 

Actual station locations and amenities would be evaluated in 

future phases of the study as part of a subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis.

10/7/15 Camille Kershner

As was mentioned by nearly every commenter at the Tucson open house in September, the 

most logical southern terminus for this project is Tucson International Airport. as another 

commenter also noted, this project absolutely should be powered by renewably sourced 

electricity- solar panels above and alongside the tracks can easily help offset some of this 

energy need, setting a great example for the rest of the country by providing a sustainable 

connection from the southern half of the state to the rest of the world via Sky Harbor and 

TIA, and to the surrounding metro regions through the MetroRail and SunLink. For example: 

Please join us at 7pm this Thursday, October 8 UCFW Hall at 877 S. Alvernon Way A Future 

Without Fossil Fuels. The world is using up its Carbon Budget. A future that solves Climate 

Change is going to have to stop using fossil fuels. What does a fossil-free electricity grid look 

like? Come find out at this presentation by Robert Bulechek, clean energy consultant and 

chair of the Tucson-Pima County Energy Commission. Facebook event: 

https://www.facebook.com/events/604720469669536/

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1. The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, but actual end-of-line station 

locations would be evaluated during future phases of the 

study as part of subsequent planning and environmental 

analysis. 

2. The preliminary analysis conducted for this Tier 1 EIS study 

assumed the use of diesel multiple unit trains. However, actual 

decisions regarding preferred technologies, and the 

consideration of solar power, would be made in future phases 

of the study as part of subsequent planning and 

environmental analysis.

10/8/15 Mary Whitted

I am a resident of San Tan Valley near the Queen Creek Area. I absolutely oppose having the 

train stop anywhere near our areas. This will bring our area crime from Tucson, Eloy, Coolidge

and Florence. Also this rail runs directly along the same areas where prisoners are released 

compromising safety. This is a bad idea and will only make it easier for prison escapees to get 

away faster. I am appalled that we are even considering this as a way of increasing money 

and jobs to our town. It's just going to add to the issue of people sitting in front of the circle K 

System security would be evaluated in future phases of the 

study as part of subsequent planning and environmental 

analysis, but safety will be of the utmost importance moving 

forward.ISimilar transit systems implemented throughout the 

country have not been shown to result in an increase in crime.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -60

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

waiting to be picked up for work. This will also put unneeded strain on deputies and they will 

ask for a larger contract when it's time to renew. This is just a really nasty idea and bad for 

our community.

10/8/15 dottieday@...

Having any public transportation available in Queen Creek would open employment and 

education opportunities up to all the youth in our community. Young people who don't have 

a job can't afford a car and without a car they can't get to a job. Catch -22. This would help 

tremendously.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/8/15 Kiel Fullmer

I would love to see the Passenger Rail come into fruition. It's a great idea that is needed to 

expand the valley and will connect the metro-area as a whole. Living out in Queen Creek, I 

have a daily commute of close to an hour to get to my job in Phoenix. The Passenger Rail 

would easily get me to a closer point quicker, and allow me to carpool or use the Metro 

Public Transport to get to work. I saw the proposed lines on the Queen Creek Town Facebook 

Page and really like the Yellow Line suggestion as it seems it already follows an established 

railroad and connects more towns/cities.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/8/15 Susan Scott

The orange line provides better connection for the eastern most cities of Gilbert, Queen 

Creek San Tan Valley and Apache Junction. Chandler has current access to 101 and 202 

freeways. Definitely we need a system.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/10/15 Angela Porter

I would like to know the proposed stop in Queen Creek. How close to a neighborhood? Specific station locations were not evaluated in detail as part 

of this Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level assumptions as part of 

the recommended Yellow Corridor Alternative necessary for 

operational planning did assume a station in Queen Creek. 

Actual station locations and considerations, such as proximity 

to existing residential neighborhoods, would be evaluated in 

future phases of the study as part of subsequent planning and 

environmental analysis.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -61

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/10/15 Ralph Smith

Queen Creek has enough train noise in town. Route the new passenger away from Queen 

Creek or include noise free zones in your plan.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/13/15 Charlotte Appel

The yellow line will be beneficial to all people of Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek and 

San Tan Valley. It will help promote more business and traffic flow to all areas and decrease 

carbon emissions. I personally work at Banner Ironwood Medical Center at San Tan Valley and 

I'm also the Travel Reduction Program coordinator for both Banner Ironwood and Banner 

Goldfield (Apache Junction) and we are looking for ways to cut down on car travel. This will 

greatly help improve the air quality for the East Valley. We will save on gas, money, and clean 

the air. Many of our staff travel in from Maricopa County into Pinal County for work. With a 

passenger railway into the East Valley, I can only see more convenience for travel and lighter 

traffic on the roads.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/13/15 Nancy Anacker

I was recently in New Mexico and observed the Santa Fe to Albuquerque rail, which I think is 

a good model. We truly need a rail line between Phoenix and Tucson to alleviate some of the 

traffic on I-10 and to make commuting easier for many people. I think it needs to be done 

sooner rather than later, and if New Mexico can do it, we can too. Theirs is fast, very 

reasonably priced and comfortable.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Other comparable passenger rail systems from around the 

United States have been referenced and studied as part of the 

Tier 1 EIS analysis.

10/13/15 Dr. Christopher Bleuenstein

I am fully supportive of a train route and I do like the yellow alternative route. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/17/15 William Ferguson

Elon Musk hyper-loop in this corridor is well worth considering with its environmental and 

fiscal impact on many of us living in Arizona.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

This Tier 1 EIS assumed the use of diesel multiple unit trains 

for high-level cost, operations, and environmental impact

comparisons. Actual decisions regarding vehicles and 

technology would be evaluated in detail as part of subsequent

planning and environmental analysis.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -62

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/18/15 Tanya Petros

Yes please bring this into Queen Creek. Only request is that it drops off AT THE PHOENIX SKY 

HARBOR AIRPORT. Meaning IN THE AIRPORT like the light rail does at the Atlanta airport. No 

point in having it stop away from the airport and then have to bus in. the light rail in Atlanta 

for drop off and pick up is actually ATTACHED to the airport.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations were not determined as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level operational assumptions for 

both corridor alternatives included a future connection to 

Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. Station locations and the actual 

design of airport and transit system connections would be 

evaluated in detail in future phases of the study as part of 

subsequent planning and environmental documentation.

10/18/15 Connie Finneman

I support the Yellow line. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/18/15 Shana

Queen Creek is a rapidly growing community that is seriously lacking a transportation system. 

A passenger rail system would provide invaluable connection to the rest of the valley. It 

would be greatly welcomed and utilized here.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/18/15 Karen Mallo

Please bring the yellow line to Queen Creek. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/18/15 Angela McElyea

I support mass transit efforts in general and would like more detailed pro/con analysis made 

available in Queen Creek. People don't seem to understand the benefits...making them jump 

on "more crime" type of comments, and while they may be acting like sheep and spreading 

negativism I'd like to hear more about the actual pros and cons that were assessed.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Details of all Tier 1 EIS analyses are available on the ADOT 

website 

(https://www.azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PassengerR

ail/deis). Chapter 7 of the Tier 1 EIS includes a comparison of 

the alternatives; a review of the corridor alternatives 

compared with the No Build Alternative provides the 

information for you to make your own pro and con 

assessment. More detailed design-level analysis would be 

included in future phases of the study as part of a subsequent

planning and environmental analysis.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -63

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/18/15 brittneyj21@...

Yes to the yellow alternative. I would love a faster and more eco friendly way to get to 

Phoenix from San Tan Valley.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/19/15 Julie Hackamack

I am in support of the Orange Line option. There is an increasing amount of aging population 

in Queen Creek, and this route provides a viable solution to the area’s most common 

practices and facilities that patients are referred to.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The community of Queen Creek would actually not be directly 

served by the Orange Corridor Alternative. However, the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative would serve Queen Creek.

10/20/15 Jessica Smith

Please bring the Passenger Rail to Queen Creek! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/20/15 Jason Zielinski

I have a question regarding the Yellow Plan railway from Phoenix to Tucson. How wide is 

Union Pacific's right of way? I'm building a home within a mile of the railway and I am 

concerned about the potential of my home being a casualty of a new railway.

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is a mile-wide corridor. ADOT 

anticipates that an alignment alternative within this corridor 

would likely be located within or adjacent to the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, although other alignments 

may be considered. During the subsequent planning and 

design stage, public coordination and outreach would 

continue at a more localized level to discuss potential impacts 

to neighborhoods and individual properties. The Union Pacific 

rights-of-way vary from 66 feet to 200 feet, depending on the 

location within the corridor.

10/20/15 Casey Bair

My name is Casey Bair and I am a property owner and have lived in Queen Creek, AZ for the 

last 7 years. I am 100% against passenger rail coming through our town. This will be wasted 

tax dollars on a train that few people will use (despite what studies there have been) go to 

any big city and the trains are vacant. I do not want the added crime in our town, including 

the added crime in Gilbert which is one of the safest towns in the country. There is a reason 

why that is true and you would have to think not have passenger rail systems running 

through the town helps that statistic of safety. This is one of the worst ideas Arizona has had. 

Seems like 80%+ are against it in Queen Creek and Gilbert and want to make sure all of those 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

To clarify, the light rail system in Phoenix carries twice its 

forecast ridership in the corridor it serves. It has also created 

an environment favorable for growth in the city. Property 

values in the vicinity of stations tend to rise over time because 

of the improved access to the rail mode, and crime actually 

goes down based on the studies completed on the subject in 

other communities. Based on the benefits to be derived from 

the proposed system, the Town of Queen Creek has been in 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -64

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

comments are heard. favor of the project. In general, the project has had more 

public support than opposition.

10/24/15 Darryl Mondrow

We should not be considering diesel engines - electric is the wise alternative because it is 

much less polluting, both for emissions as well as noise. Electric technology for rail 

transportation has been embraced in Europe as well as Japan. Look at the scandal that just 

occurred with VW Corp and their diesel technology pollution issues. Diesel is not the wave of 

the future - if we truly care about reducing pollution in the Phoenix-Tucson corridor, we must 

seriously consider the electric alternative Thank you for your efforts.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

This Tier 1 EIS assumed the use of diesel multiple unit trains 

for high-level cost, operations, and environmental impact 

analyses. More detailed evaluations of vehicles and 

technology would be evaluated as part of a subsequent 

planning and environmental analysis.

10/24/15 Brye

In regards to this project, please reconsider the yellow corridor and instead use one of the 

other alternatives. I read that the yellow corridor would bring more riders, and I see the 

positive in that, but it runs right through many small town communities, including my 

hometown Queen Creek. I have embraced the growth in the Queen Creek area over the last 

10 years. It is much bigger than when I first moved out here almost 25 years ago. I am 

grateful for the town planners for managing the growth out here while still maintaining the 

small farm town feeling that exists here. I worry that a transportation/rail line being built to 

go through this town will bring in many problems for our community, including increased 

crime, transients, more rapid growth that takes away from the farming community feel, 

traffic, etc. The rail lines mentioned that the yellow corridor would follow also passes by 

many of our town’s schools, including Poston Butte high school, Queen Creek high school, 

Queen Creek middle school, Benjamin Franklin High School, Heritage Charter school, and 

more - which could possibly pose a variety of threats to school kids as well. My opinion is 

narrowed to this area, but the yellow corridor may pose similar issues in other areas that it is 

proposed to run through, including in San Tan Valley and Gilbert areas. The alternative 

options may not bring as many riders since they don't run right through the middle of these 

towns/cities but those who are anticipating help with their commute between The Phoenix 

area and the Tucson area will likely still use rail system no matter where it is and those 

commuters/ potential riders are the reason this rail system was proposed in the first place. It 

is not necessary to us who don't count on or need the rail system to build it in a way that 

would be at our expense. I am for building a rail system as I can see how that would help out 

many people, but I really hope that the current leading corridor (the yellow line) is 

reconsidered. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT has recommended the Yellow Corridor Alternative

based on a combination of technical analysis (including cost, 

ridership, and environmental impact considerations), public 

comments, and input from agencies including the Town of 

Queen Creek. System security and the avoidance of or 

mitigation of sensitive noise receptors (including schools) 

would be addressed in subsequent environmental analyses 

during later planning and design phases of this study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -65

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/24/15 Keith Brussman

Definitely about time. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Mary G James

Rail service between Phoenix and Tucson would be valuable for students attending U of A as 

well as for family members visiting their children/siblings enrolled at the U of A. Many people 

have friends and family in both towns and would benefit from riding the train rather than 

driving on an already congested I-10. This interstate is so heavily traveled that an alternative 

method of transportation would be welcomed. Rental car companies and taxi services would 

thrive at both terminal points as would possible expanded future metro rail services. Please 

continue to explore and implement a rail service between Phoenix and Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Michael Guilliam

I think the rail system would be incredibly beneficial to the state. It would allow for stronger 

business ties between the two cities, and would allow for undergraduate and graduate 

students more options in terms of their Universities. For both cities, this would mean 

individuals becoming qualified without leaving their home, thus providing a benefit for their 

home city, where it would otherwise have been prohibitive to remain.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 D Beeby

The rail will get good use between Tucson and the Phoenix area. BUILD it. I personally prefer 

the Green line.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Alternative was removed from further 

consideration as part of this Tier 1 EIS. It did not attract 

ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively 

serve as many key population centers within the study 

corridor, and presented a high degree of potential cultural 

resource impacts. 

10/24/15 gojolly123@...

We should not be considering diesel engines - electric is the wise alternative because it is 

much less polluting, both for emissions as well as noise. Electric technology for rail 

transportation has been embraced in Europe as well as Japan. Look at the scandal that just 

occurred with VW Corp and their diesel technology pollution issues. Diesel is not the wave of 

the future - if we truly care about reducing pollution in the Phoenix-Tucson corridor, we must 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

This Tier 1 EIS assumed the use of diesel multiple unit trains 

for high level cost, operations, and environmental impact 

analyses. More detailed evaluations of vehicles and 

technology would be evaluated as part of a subsequent NEPA 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -66

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

seriously consider the electric alternative Thank you for your efforts. analysis.

10/25/15 Christopher

Hello, Thank you for considering rail in AZ. I would love to see the rail built from Phoenix to 

Tucson. Hopefully funding came come from grants, privately through business ads such as on 

trains and at stations, as well as possibly taxes. I'd also like to see future rail carried on from 

Phoenix to Las Vegas on the north route and to California on the western route. I believe this 

will be another crucial piece of our infrastructure over this next half century.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 1) 

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, but this does not preclude 

future studies to connect Phoenix to other destinations such 

as Las Vegas or California. 2) Financing to further develop the 

proposed system is not available at this time, but would be 

evaluated in future phases of the study as part of a 

subsequent analysis.

10/24/15 Anna-Lisa Tonge Souers

The orange route is the preferred route. Apache Junction to Florence would benefit the many 

the current commute the I-60 to Florence Junction on inadequate roadways and are 

dangerous are employees at the Federal, State and Immigration facilities. This route would 

also provide safe alternatives for students and professionals from these areas that desire to 

Attend ASU or work in downtown Phx with a simple contain on the express bus lines at 

Superstition Springs. The current ADOT preferred route is not good as the police and EMS 

services are contracted and disorganized in the event of major event. As well as this area will 

be serviced by 2 freeway routes. It's time to serve rural Apache Junction and Pinal county 

which is equally population dense. The population are underserved in AJ and Gold Canyon as 

they are older, lower social security and would benefit from having transportation to events, 

shopping, adequate medical care and services Apache Junction is unable to provide or have at 

a premium due to unrealistic city taxes and lack of mainstream retailers.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The preferred Yellow Corridor Alternative and the Orange 

Corridor Alternative are both served by the same ambulance 

services. Police services for both corridor alternatives are 

identical in the areas where they run in common or are near 

each other, but where the corridors intersect with different 

local jurisdictions (such as Coolidge and Florence) police 

services differ. With nearly the same service providers for 

emergency services, response times to major emergency 

events would be expected to be comparable. System security 

and EMS access would be evaluated in more detail during 

future stages of the study as part of a subsequent analysis.

10/24/15 Michael Zichichi

The yellow plan with a stop in Queen Creek is the best long term option for ridership which is 

the point of a commuter rail line, isn't it? Please select this option with a stop in Queen Creek. 

As a Queen Creek resident I support this option and would use the service.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations were not evaluated in detail as part 

of this Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level assumptions as part of 

the recommended Yellow Corridor Alternative necessary for 

operational planning did assume a station in Queen Creek. 

Proposed station locations would be evaluated in further 

detail as part of future phases of the study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -67

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/24/15 Jim Dickey

This is an excellent effort and begs the question of organizational structure and funding in 

order to continue additional planning, design, environmental, engineering, and 

implementation plans. Because of relationship building with the UP, FRA, FTA, and others, it 

seems only right to take the next steps. As part of a larger FRA SW regional plan, next steps 

would keep Arizona on the US transportation map. As to the study, although significant 

alignment details remain to be determined, this study identifies a clear path to developing an 

urban transportation solution (commuter rail) and identify for the first time an option to 

adding more highway lanes to I-10 to connect Arizona's two major urban areas (intercity rail). 

ADOT should be congratulated for thinking outside that box. This project has demonstrated 

major support from community and business members in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties. 

It should not be left out in ADOT's long term planning process. 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Nichole Boyd

This is a great idea. I love that someone has become innovated in making travel easier. I 

would also like to see if a light rail would be built to flagstaff. Arizona is growing and ADOT 

should also be growing. This proposed plan to Tucson could help families who need cost 

effective travel. Also this would be a great asset to College students so they can travel easier 

into the valley.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, but this does not preclude 

future studies evaluating connections from Phoenix to other 

destinations such as Flagstaff.

10/24/15 E W Olson

My only comment for the rail is to make it high-speed with stops spread out so you can 

provide a fast service. A train going 60 miles an hour is not an improvement. If you are just 

using a train or slow form of transportation you might as well widen the freeways for 

vehicles.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The analysis for this Tier 1 EIS assumed a top speed of 125 

mph.

10/24/15 Jennifer Childers

I would use the passenger rail system from Phoenix to Tucson. I have family in Tucson and it 

would be easier to visit them with this system.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Liliana Figueroa

This is a wonderful idea. I'm a federal employee and several of us have had to frequently 

commute to Tucson to help our peers at the federal courthouse there and the drive is 

exhausting! I speak for hundreds of Feds whom go back and forth! Hopefully, this will become 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -68

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

a reality soon!

10/24/15 Jeanmarie Harrington 

Bisceglia

I think this will be a great option for professionals like attorneys who have to travel between 

Phoenix and Tucson. With a passenger rail professionals could use the commute time to work 

rather than be stuck in traffic driving. I would take advantage of it.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Dawnn Salyers

I think it’s a wonderful idea to expand the light rail or create a passenger rail to the Tucson 

area. This opens up opportunity for tourism, my belief is this will great expand simple day 

trips opportunity for those to travel back and forth for events, leisure etc.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Jacqueline V

This is not of much interest to me as I do not travel to any southern parts of Arizona. I would 

not be for this project.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Monica Cara

I vote for the yellow route. Living in a rural area, it would be nice to have alternative ways to 

travel to the valley.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/24/15 Amanda

A commuter train between Tucson and Flagstaff would be very beneficial...college students 

could use it; I could have stayed in my house in Tucson and still work in Phoenix. Stops in Casa 

Grande would allow shopping; seniors can travel safely between cities. There are so many 

accidents between Tucson and Phoenix, this would be wonderful.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations were not determined as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS. The communities of Flagstaff and Casa Grande 

would not be directly served by either the Yellow or Orange 

corridor alternatives, but this does not preclude future studies 

evaluating connections to other destinations.

10/24/15 Karen Matthews

I work in Tucson for a company that is headquartered in Tempe. Having a reliable commuter 

rail system between the two cities would be a tremendous benefit given the number of times 

employees at both locations need to travel between the two offices for meetings, training 

and staff development activities.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -69

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/24/15 Charles Dine

I love the idea of a rail system connecting our entire state eventually. As a Marine I have 

enjoyed Japan's extensive rail amenities. America is already a dinosaur by comparison and 

must begin planning for mass interconnecting transit now so easements are planned. One 

thing I didn't see discussed was this particular route's proximity to Gateway. Whichever route 

is decided upon, proximity to Gateway should be a factor.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Proximity to airports, including Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, was 

an important consideration during the analysis of corridor 

alternatives. Although specific station locations, and airport 

connections, were not analyzed as part of this Tier 1 EIS, these 

considerations would be evaluated in detail during future 

planning and design phases of the study.

10/24/15 Sean Paddock

As long as the final route connects with the current light rail system in the greater Phoenix 

area I am open to any rail system to connect Phoenix and Tucson. Having to choose one of 

the three listed, the yellow line is the one that would be most beneficial to me.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Connections to the existing Valley Metro light rail system were 

included in high-level operational assumptions for both the 

Yellow and Orange corridor alternatives.

10/24/15 Jeff Porter

The study so far has shown rail is too expensive compared to adding lanes and wheeled 

alternatives. Please don't waste any more study money on rail trying to justify a wasteful, 

ideologically driven transportation alternative. Add lanes, encourage self driving electric cars 

in this time frame, at much less cost per passenger mile. Trains are great at freight from sea 

ports to distribution centers; don't put passengers in the way on limited, costly rails.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

This study was conducted in order to evaluate alternatives to 

automobile travel between Phoenix and Tucson, as adding 

lanes to existing freeways within the study corridor is 

sometimes not a feasible long-term solution.

10/25/15 Derek O'Toole

As a resident of the East Valley, I believe the orange route proposal makes the most sense 

due to the massive influx of population to Queen Creek and San Tan Valley. Currently there is 

no public transit being offered to these residents who could benefit from a tie-in to Central 

Phoenix. If the current railroad is used as well throughout the area, a mighty cost savings 

could be incurred. I know for myself, if a rail was provided I would never have a need to use 

my vehicle to access Phoenix again.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Orange Corridor Alternative does not directly serve Queen 

Creek or San Tan Valley, nor does it follow an existing freight 

rail corridor through the East Valley. However, the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative does directly serve these communities, as 

well as follow an existing freight rail corridor.

10/25/15 Virginia Genovese

Please move forward with a plan to initiate public rail service between Tucson and Phoenix! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -70

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/25/15 cluciodi@

In my honest opinion, I don't know anyone who travels frequently enough to Tucson to need 

a passenger rail. We should work on getting trains from Phoenix to Glendale, Surprise, etc...

Not Tucson, most people who travel to Tucson has cars.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Although the analysis of this Tier 1 EIS focused on a 

passenger rail connection between Phoenix and Tucson, 

commuter connections into the West Valley were considered 

as part of high level operational assumptions. 

2) Ridership estimates conducted as part of this Tier 1 EIS have 

indicated the potential for over 2,500 daily riders between 

Phoenix and Tucson, and over 15,000 shorter trips in the 

Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.

10/25/15 James Cramer

I believe AZ must build a rail system between Tucson and Phoenix, I also think that both cities 

need to clearly address the needs of the passengers once they arrive by train. How will they 

get around the city, will a park and ride system be in place, can they accomplish their travel 

goals efficiently? Can riding the train eliminate the need for a private mode of transportation 

comfortably? Not connecting the train system to Airports, Universities, Major Shopping, 

Medical, and Sporting and Entertainment venues in some fashion would be a major mistake.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Passenger rail system connections to other transit services, as 

well as activity centers such as airports, universities, and 

venues were major considerations in all alternative routing 

evaluations as part of this Tier 1 EIS. More detailed 

investigations of specific station locations and amenities, such 

as parking facilities, would be evaluated in more detail in later 

planning and design phases of the study. 

10/26/15 Terence Johnson

I just want to say thank you for launching this study, and that I hope the project moves 

ahead. I would recommend starting small, using existing tracks (the yellow route) and 

refurbished equipment at first to drive capital costs down, just as a private sector startup 

would. Trinity Rail Express in Dallas would be a good model to follow. They used rebuilt units 

at first and then invested in new equipment as demand grew. I believe their original units are 

now available for another startup service to lease. As a Canadian businessman, I'm much 

more likely to attend events in the Phoenix -Tucson area if I can get around by public transit 

and see something outside the conference while I'm in the area. The ease of getting around 

without hiring a car is currently a major incentive to attend events organised in the SF Bay 

Area. I tend to see driving time as stressful, unproductive time, and ride public transport as 

much as possible. If there's coffee and wi-fi, even better. Also, don't forget that evening and 

weekend services are important both for 24/7 businesses and for families to get around. A 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative of this Tier 1 EIS is the ADOT 

recommended option, which follows existing Union Pacific 

Railroad freight corridors. The proposed passenger rail service 

that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would operate on 

independent track built to higher standards than needed for 

freight movement and would not share line capacity with 

Union Pacific freight operations. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -71

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

service that only operates on weekday rush hours excludes a lot of potential personal travel 

plans and leaves all its expensive capital equipment idle for much of the time.

10/26/15 R. L .Stump

The passenger rail system between Tucson and Phoenix is long overdue. The traffic 

congestion, road conditions and ongoing major traffic collisions along I-10 is terrible. When a 

dust storm comes through vehicle traffic is a disaster. The train should tie into the light rail in 

metro phoenix to make it really efficient. Get with it ADOT the price keeps going up.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The passenger train would link to light rail, street car, and bus 

services in a number of locations along the corridor.

10/26/15 Jeff

I feel that the recommended route using the "Yellow Alternative” is the best, safest and cost 

effective plan ADOT has given. I am for the "Yellow Alternative" Thanks!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Patrick McCarthy

Please do not waste our money on a Passenger Rail. You could spend 1/10th of this amount 

and have Super Luxury, ticket subsidized busses run between Phx and Tucson. See this great 

article http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/light-rail-doesnt-work Even with 

overly luxurious busses (and I mean add all kinds of features, food, keep them super clean) 

it’s still MUCH less expensive AND can adapt to any changes. A rail system cannot adapt - it’s

a fixed structure. Rail systems in Arizona make zero sense - take a look at the light rail in 

Phoenix/Tempe - what a joke. some other required reading: 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/high-speed-rail 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/lone-star-rail-insanity

There are many perspectives that influence our transportation 

system, both in favor of and opposed to all types of travel 

modes. Given the expected congestion our highways will 

experience in the relatively near future as a result of high 

growth in the corridor between Phoenix and Tucson, the 

consideration of a passenger rail system is offered as a 

complement to the highway (I-10, mostly), not a replacement 

for it. Buses were studied as part of the Alternatives Analysis 

that preceded the Tier 1 EIS. They are certainly able to provide 

a high quality service, but they cannot carry the anticipated 

travel demand of a train and cannot do so at the speeds of a 

higher speed train. Passenger rail can be a costly project, but it 

could be implemented in phases and would provide a more 

comprehensive solution than bus travel can offer.

10/26/15 Steve Whaley

No Build Alternative. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 dinadoolen@...

I prefer the orange alternative because it also serves more outlying rural areas. I believe that 

alternative will be the best start to such service.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study.

The selection of the Yellow Corridor Alternative was based 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -72

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

largely on the fact that it is able to serve the major 

population centers in the corridor. 

10/26/15 Steve

Rail? Suggest a high-tech solution using the latest in self-driving automobile technology. 

Commercial grade vehicles, self guided, that form a "train" when electronically linked. Make 

them electric (ref: Tesla) and just add "diamond-plus" lanes. Lead the nation in forward 

thinking green technology and save a few dollars on using the same infrastructure.

This is a possible scenario for the future and could influence 

how funding for transportation is allocated once it is a viable 

option. At this stage, the proposed passenger rail system is 

designed to offer a higher-speed service to shorten the time 

between the two major metro areas in Arizona. The 

connected vehicle changes under development would

certainly complement the high-speed rail program.

10/26/15 Rich Franz-Under

I support passenger rail. The no rail alternative is not a forward thinking alternative. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 James Orcutt

I think this is a great idea. We should also consider rail lines from Phoenix to LA, Phoenix to Las 

Vegas and Phoenix to Flagstaff. All of these are heavily traveled by Arizona residents. A highspeed rail to LA would be unbelievable popular.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, but this does not preclude 

future studies to connect Phoenix to other destinations.

10/26/15 Tracy Reichle

We support the yellow line with access to Queen Creek. This would greatly boost the local 

economy as well as allowing many to search for employment opportunities outside the smaller 

area currently available to them.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Former St. Sen. Jack Harper

No state funds should be spent on the rail to Tucson, unless the Grand Ave Commuter Rail is

funded from the same source. Maricopa County should not subsidize other areas of the state, 

as the Transportation Committee has often required by spending general fund dollars only in 

non-Maricopa parts of Arizona.

Though it is not a part of this Tier 1 EIS, the Grand Avenue 

Corridor was considered as a part of the project to establish 

ridership levels and to recognize the need to reach the 

westerly areas of Maricopa County for the overall program to 

succeed. Funding for the passenger rail project has not yet 

been identified, but it is likely to occur in phases. Maricopa 

County contributions would presumably cover the segments 

in Maricopa County, but there could also be a statewide 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -73

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

element to the funding program, which could be public or 

private.

10/26/15 Amanda Harrison

I fully support the Tucson to Phoenix Rail being built through San Tan Valley & Queen Creek. I 

believe the Phoenix area has benefitted from this in the past, and being able to expand the Rail 

through the East Valley and to Tucson will open up new jobs, create new and improved cities. 

San Tan Valley & Queen Creek has the room to support the rail, and I do believe in the long run 

our cities could benefit from this rail.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Lori Campbell

I fully support the proposed route (yellow) that would route through Queen Creek. This line 

make the most economical and logistical sense, in that the rail lines are already in place. This 

would be a huge boost to the commerce in the southeast valley area. I grew up in the Chicago 

area, so I know how beneficial a commuter rail line can be for both work and pleasure travel.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Jeff Cooley

After studying the two remaining alternatives, it appears to me that the yellow alignment 

would be less expensive and would benefit the most people and would have the most 

ridership. I therefore, recommend the yellow alignment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Sharon Slade

I agree that the Yellow Corridor option seems to be the best option for rail travel between 

Tucson and Phoenix. I would use this new rail system frequently since I have family living in 

Gilbert. The lower cost of this option and the better environmental impact is what makes this 

corridor ideal. A big "thanks" to all who are working so hard to make Arizona a better place to 

live!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Kelley Thomas

I am in support of the Passenger Rail from Tucson to Phoenix. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Braden

I fully support the Yellow Line! It will provide a valuable asset for growth to the ever growing 

and changing east valley.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -74

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 steve@p...

This project would be an incredible WASTE of money, and would be of little benefit to the 

majority of taxpayers. Better to simply increase the number of lanes on I-10 between Phoenix 

and Tucson. Very few would want to arrive in either city without having a car to use for travel. 

DON'T BUILD a railway between Phoenix and Tucson.

The rail system is proposed as an alternative to the personal 

vehicle and the freeway. In the future, even with driverless 

vehicles, congestion would be a primary determinant of 

travel decisions. Travel forecasts in 2040 assume I-10 will be 

widened to at least eight lanes (four in each direction) 

throughout the Phoenix-Tucson Corridor. Passenger rail 

would offer an alternative to vehicular travel in the Tucson to 

Phoenix corridor. Upon arrival at a destination, the train 

would depend on good local access services (i.e., taxi, bus, 

light rail, Uber, bike share, etc.) much like what happens 

when passengers arrive at an airport.

10/26/15 Kevin Myers

My comments really are more in the form of maybe questions to be answered... 1) How would 

the Orange route interact with potential light rail plans to utilize the US 60 corridor? 2) The 

orange route would serve a potentially broader customer base if any stops were added along 

the US 60 through Mesa / Gilbert 3) The Yellow route would probably best utilize currently 

under-used existing infrastructure along Rittenhouse Rd in Queen Creek, but may generate 

more negative feedback from surrounding neighborhood developments 4) The green route 

wouldn't attract as many users from the East Valley since there wouldn't be any benefit to 

commuting TO the commuter rail.

1) At this time, there are no specific proposals for light rail in 

the US 60 Corridor. The configuration of the passenger rail 

system in the Tier 1 EIS is not yet fully defined. 2) The Yellow 

Corridor Alternative provides more direct access to Mesa, 

Gilbert, Tempe, Queen Creek, etc. along the existing freight 

track than the Orange Corridor Alternative that does not 

access downtown areas. 3) The proposed passenger rail 

service would operate on independent track built to higher 

standards than needed for freight movement and would not 

share line capacity with Union Pacific freight operations. 

Potential impacts to adjacent communities are discussed in 

general terms in this Tier 1 EIS and would be further 

evaluated in a subsequent environmental analysis. 4) You are 

correct that the Green Alternative does not attract the same 

level of ridership as the Yellow and Orange corridor 

alternatives.

10/26/15 Craig McFarland

#1 ADOT project should be the widening of I-10 between Chandler and Casa Grande 

#2 State Rail Plan should use the existing I-10 corridor, stop avoiding the tribal land.

Tribal lands are subject to the decisions of the affected 

Native American community. Each one is a sovereign nation, 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -75

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

with a separate government. The Green Alternative, which 

followed I-10, was eliminated from further consideration. It

did not attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, did 

not effectively serve as many key population centers within 

the study corridor, and presented a high degree of potential 

cultural resource impacts. 

10/26/15 Danney Cox

I am all for it as long as the costs are fully covered by ticket prices. I do not want any funds to 

support this project if they come from taxes: state, county, local or otherwise.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Funding sources are not yet defined and the defrayal of costs 

through fares is one element of those future discussions. The 

others could be private or public funds. With the exception of 

some toll roads, no transportation systems in the U.S. are 

fully funded by their own revenues, so it is likely that multiple 

sources and/or subsidies would be required.

10/26/15 Frank M. Pierson

The proposed rail line between Tucson and Phoenix needs to be built. I am in favor of moving 

this project forward. The economic benefits as stated in the report are probably not correct; 

instead I think that the proposed numbers are on the low end.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The economic benefits would be further analyzed and refined

in future studies.

10/26/15 Bryce McBride

I strongly recommend the green alternative route (the one that follows I-10 right alongside

Casa Grande) for this project. It would make a lot more sense. Plus, who wants to go thru Eloy 

and Coolidge?? Bleh!!

The Green Alternative was eliminated from consideration 

because it did not perform as well as the Yellow and Orange 

corridor alternatives. It did not attract ridership comparable 

to other alternatives, did not effectively serve as many key 

population centers within the study corridor, and presented a 

high degree of potential cultural resource impacts. A 

passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative

would also cost less to build. Casa Grande would still have 

access to the rail line, but it would be farther east. 

10/26/15 Robin Karlo

I think the YELLOW line would be a great benefit to the town of Queen Creek. Would love to 

have the Yellow line get the ok to build. Love the idea of getting to phoenix or Tucson using 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -76

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

the train. Also think it would be great alternative to driving and parking at the airport, or for 

visitors using to get to queen creek. Utilizing a portion of the current track makes sense. The 

yellow line gets a big YES from me.

10/26/15 MJ Winst

No please No. No new passenger railways of any kind. Huge waste of money for something 

which will be unused. I can't imagine this is still being considered.

The studies indicate the project would be well used given the 

anticipated congestion that will significantly worsen on I-10 

over the next 25 years. It is an alternative that can offer 

avoidance of typically congested conditions anticipated on I10 even after it is widened to four lanes in each direction.

10/26/15 Lisa Blackwell

I do not like the idea of a passenger railway going through Queen Creek. Most people moved 

there for its small town feel and that would definitely change that. Growth is good, but for 

some areas it is too much. So I vote NO to a passenger railway in Queen Creek.

ADOT has recommended the Yellow Corridor Alternative, 

which would pass through Queen Creek, based on a 

combination of technical analysis (including cost, ridership, 

and environmental impact considerations), public comments, 

and input from agencies including the Town of Queen Creek. 

Impacts to adjacent communities would be considered in 

greater detail in a subsequent environmental document prior 

to any construction.

10/26/15 Leslie Ann Wallace

WE NEED THE YELLOW ROUTE! Queen Creek and San Tan Valley are growing and will continue 

to grow. The current and proposed growth in population will support the YELLOW ROUTE! This 

will also increase property values as Queen Creek and San Tan Valley will be more desirable 

with public transportation needs met.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Ernest M. Galaz

This is an idea that should have been implemented years ago. This will also have a positive 

impact on transportation in other neighboring counties such as Santa Cruz, Cochise and Gila; I 

strongly support the Yellow Alternative and intend to lobby policymakers and business leaders 

to move this forward.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Adriel

I think this is a great idea! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -77

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Jeffrey Sharp, M.D.

I took the train from Phoenix to Tucson as a boy. Where was that route and what happened to 

it? There is existing track that goes along Rittenhouse. It would make sense to use existing 

track. The green alternative would not help the east valley residents access Tucson at all. The 

yellow alternative looks faster than orange and would get some east valley traffic. The orange 

alternative looks slower but provides access for more east valley residents. I would build the 

least expensive using existing track where possible.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Amtrak trains from California formerly traveled from Yuma 

through Phoenix and Tempe, then continued to Tucson on 

the Phoenix Subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad. The 

tracks between Yuma and Phoenix are no longer in service, so 

those trains now bypass Phoenix and travel through 

Maricopa on their way to Tucson. Considering the overall 

estimated costs, projected ridership, agency and public input, 

and potential environmental impacts associated with 

implementing passenger rail within in the corridor 

alternatives, a passenger rail system within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative (which follows the Phoenix Subdivision) 

is considered to be more cost efficient and a better 

performing passenger rail system compared to the other 

alternatives in this study. Passenger rail service would most 

likely require new track, even if adjacent to existing freight 

track, because it operates at higher speeds than freight 

trains, and requires much tighter tolerances for safety and 

performance.

10/26/15 Andrew Ryan

I am very glad that the Yellow route is currently the recommended route. I would very much 

like to see Arizona to think towards the future and consider electric locomotives for use for 

commuter and intercity to be ahead of the power curve on the energy production utilized to 

power these trains. The use of solar and battery systems could possibly reduce long term costs 

and increase energy production in this industry for the state by possibly utilizing the existing 

right of way that this route provides.

No technology has been proposed or selected in the EIS 

though relatively conservative assumptions have been made 

about the performance of a future system to forecast 

ridership and travel times, and estimate costs. The study 

assumed a train speed of 125 mph, but it would be possible 

to operate at a higher speed under the right conditions. 

Higher speeds would also most likely require electrification. 

In a subsequent NEPA study along with supporting analyses, a 

technology would be evaluated based on the best fit for the 

corridor and in consideration of costs and ridership potential.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -78

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Carl Pavilonis

I need my tax dollars spent on projects that affect the greatest number of residents. The 

ridership numbers do not support the cost of this rail system at all. I am not in favor building 

the system, not matter what the route is.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Aaron Lenzing

I would like to see the yellow route built. It takes it through areas where commuters live. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Roger Gillespie

This is a plan long overdue and needs to be brought to fruition sooner than later. This will be a 

difficult sell to those who think, "highways are the only answer" to transportation. They must 

be made aware that almost every state in the west has some type of commuter rail system. 

The Rail Runner Express from Albuquerque (32nd largest city in the U.S.) to Santa Fe is only 97 

miles - connecting two cities with a combined "city" population of just over 625,000. Phoenix 

(6th largest city in the U.S.) to Tucson, cities with a combined "city" population of just over 2 

million! No commuter rail in the "near" future! Why do people in Arizona always have to fight 

alternative transportation methods? I.e. Light Rail??? (As a former resident of both the 

Washington D.C. metro and central Virginia areas - Metro Rail and Virginia Railway Express 

commuter rail kept me out of my car for both business and personal trips to and around the 

city) 1. Electric vs. straight diesel power plants needs to highly considered - although a higher 

cost initially for the former, the environmental impact for an inter-city/high-speed train is 

lower at greater generated speeds. 2. In addition, although not part of this study, the price of a 

ticket needs to be reasonable otherwise ridership will be minimal, as the "I told you it wouldn't 

work..." contingent will continue to over-crowd the highways.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) The technology for this project has not been defined. The 

assumption used was for 125 mph, but it would be possible 

to operate at a higher speed under the right conditions. 

Higher speeds would also most likely require electrification, 

which requires a substantial additional investment. 2) The 

price of a ticket has not been determined but the goal is to 

maintain it at an affordable level.

10/26/15 Natalie Bagnall

It seems to me that the better alternative would be the yellow line. It appears there would be 

less impact to the environment and be more cost effective for the taxpayers. It only makes 

sense to build more rail where rail already exists. I did not see any information on what kind of 

stops there would be in the small towns such as the one I live in, Coolidge. I understand that 

there would be runs with no stops from Phoenix to Tucson but there should be some stops on 

the schedule for the smaller towns. While it is wonderful to have three lanes now going to 

Tucson on I10 starting in Picacho it would be very nice for the rural citizens to have the 

alternative of the rail. I always feel like I’m stuck behind more semi traffic going from Coolidge 

to Tucson that I do going from Coolidge to Phoenix. That may not be statistically true but it 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The proposed service would combine intercity (express) with 

commuter (local) operation. The local service would stop at 

all stations along the way. The intercity would stop at fewer 

locations. Coolidge is identified as a potential stop for 

intercity because it is in the middle of the length of the 

corridor. No specific station locations have yet been 

identified, but a station would likely be located in each 

community within the corridor if there is demand for the 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -79

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

feels that way. I travel to Tucson and to Phoenix both from Coolidge and would consider that 

an alternative for me rather than driving the I10. I hope it would be an alternative for many.

service.

10/26/15 Mary Parry

I am FOR the passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Janice Stevenson

I think this is a fantastic plan and the sooner the better - the drive from Phoenix to Tucson is 

incredibly dangerous and crowded leading to pile ups, long delays and pollution from 

multitude of vehicles. The idea of having a Tempe stop is wonderful due to the number of 

students who also can then attend U of A as well as ASU. My son was living in Tempe and 

completing his Master's in Tucson (U of A) and commuted for two years - scared me to death.

Also, I am older and hesitate to drive to Tucson where one of our sons lives, but a train ride 

down and back would be so easy. I am sure that there are many people who would love to use 

the train rather than brave the highways as they get older as well. So I strongly support this 

and hope it comes to fruition quickly.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 George Sealy

I am a firm believer in the use of trains to move people about in metropolitan areas. At first, 

people are a little reluctant to use trains as they need to break from their automobile use 

habit. But then, after a while they realize how much better and easier the experience is. So 

there will be long term success and real value if the project is completed. I understand that the 

light rail system in Phoenix has ridership that is exceeding projections. I have lived in the east 

and trains are everywhere. People use them all the time. This particular corridor makes a lot of 

sense and it will help out economic development between the two cities. Here are some 

suggestions:

1.) Tie in the stations with local ground transportation systems. 

2.) Have significant park and ride facilities even for bicycles. 

3.) Locate stations fairly close to people centers such as airports, universities, sports venues, 

and corporate centers.

4.) Have monthly and even yearly fare programs. 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. All the 

bulleted items in your comment are being considered with 

the passenger rail project and would be developed in more 

detail in later phases of work.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -80

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

5.) Tie in the Phoenix light rail system with a corridor station, so that people can transfer.

10/26/15 Prof. (Dr.) James Stewart

I strongly favor the passenger rail project and would be willing to pay an additional sales tax to 

fund it. 

I tend to favor the orange route because of its stops in Chandler/Gilbert and Tempe as well as 

Phoenix. I would use the rail line at least twice a month.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Orange Corridor Alternative does not directly serve 

Chandler or Gilbert. However, the Yellow Corridor Alternative 

would directly serve Gilbert, as well as Tempe and Phoenix.

10/26/15 Jason Algyer

Please invest in the passenger rail for the community of Queen Creek. I am a American Airlines 

employee who commutes from San Tan Valley and would enjoy saving wear and tear on a 

vehicle and racking up the miles. The convenience of not having to drive 40 miles into Sky 

Harbor

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is the preferred alternative in 

the Tier1 EIS and it travels through Queen Creek.

10/26/15 Andrea Kaise

I am a relatively new resident to AZ. Two years. I would love to have a train between the two 

cities. Hope this works out!

Would the travel time be quicker than driving? Maybe not, figuring on the wait time at the 

stations. And travel time between home and station. Station and destination. It would alleviate 

road traffic, though! Especially at Thanksgiving, and over the holidays.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Travel times for the train are expected to be substantially 

shorter than the car as the congestion on I-10 is anticipated 

to grow to over three hours over the years even after 

widening of I-10 to 8 lanes (four lanes in each direction). The 

train is expected to take about 90 minutes.

10/26/15 Lucy Hernandez

I am in favor of a high-speed rail system that would connect Tucson and Phoenix via rail with 

stops in connecting cities. Our highway system has reached its capacity and expanding to 

additional lanes is costly and continues to displace residents and businesses, affecting the 

latter’s financial sustainability. US cities on the East coast are connected by rail and this has 

proved to be a preferred mode of travel for many who work and do business in major 

metropolitan areas but prefer to live outside congested cities. Additional modes of travel will 

also alleviate pollution problem that is created by vehicles on the road.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Terrel L. Pochert, “Terry

Why would the ADOT even consider a plan that bypassed the City of Maricopa and the 

AMTRAK station that exists there? Maricopa is a City of over 51,000 people and exploding. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative serves a much larger 

population base (including Coolidge, San Tan Valley, Queen 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -81

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Florence has a population of around 25,000 with NO AMTRAK station. Did somebody at ADOT 

forget that the City of Maricopa exists?

Creek, Gilbert, Mesa) much more directly than the Red 

Alternative (from the Alternatives Analysis) that runs through 

Maricopa. The Red Alternative was eliminated because it was 

a circuitous route, carried low ridership, and had potential 

impacts on Gila River Indian Community lands.

10/26/15 jesjames74@...

I live in Casa Grande and would definitely use this for shopping, sightseeing, trips w the 

grandkids. BIGGEST part of the trip is gas and mileage. Sure be a good thing

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Mark and Kathy Guidry

NO WAY. 100% of taxpaying folks will have to pay for this through taxes. 1/2% of the citizens 

of Az. will use this rail service. The other 99 1/2 % will never use it but will still have to pay for 

it. With cars getting better gas mileage, and folks having to get a “ride” to the place to board 

the train and again needing to have transportation when they arrive at the destination will 

turn out to be more expensive than driving their own POV all the way. Is this going to be 

another “BED” tax?

Aside from the fuel efficiency consideration, our highways 

(I-10 in particular) will experience very high congestion in the 

relatively near future as a result of high growth in the 

corridor between Phoenix and Tucson. That assumes I-10 is 

widened to at least 8 lanes (four in each direction) 

throughout the corridor. The consideration of a passenger 

rail system is offered as a complement to the highway (I-10, 

mostly), not a replacement for it because it provides 

additional capacity in the corridor and an alternative to 

driving. Funding sources have not been defined for the 

project yet. They could private, public, or a combination of 

both.

10/26/15 stephanieanastasia@...

I think it’s a plan whose time has come. As it stands now, driving between Tucson and Phoenix 

is the most feasible method of transportation. The amount of traffic on I-10 between Tucson 

and Phoenix has just about reached critical mass. I don’t need to go on and on about increased 

pollution, the number of serious traffic accidents that occur in this corridor, you know all of 

that. I am totally in favor of this project.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Todd

This is a 18th century solution to a 21st century non-problem. Your are wasting valuable time 

and money on this concept. It's fashionable today to do "Rail.” See link below. 

There are many perspectives that influence our 

transportation system, both in favor and opposed to all types 

of travel modes. Given the expected congestion our highways 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -82

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=10323

You are insulting my intelligence with this idea. Rail anywhere is throwing tax dollars down a 

rat hole. It is a scheme for income redistribution, from gullible citizens to a government White 

Elephant and subsidized riders. If you look at major rail systems throughout the US you will 

find that they are economically unsound and in fact many are dangerous because they don't 

have funds to do maintenance. Washington DC for example. ADOT has many more important 

things to fund, for example - maintaining what exists. You can't do that right now and that’s

why you rely on volunteers to clean the road shoulders.

will experience in the relatively near future as a result of high 

growth in the corridor between Phoenix and Tucson, the 

consideration of a passenger rail system is offered as a 

complement to the highway (I-10, mostly), not a replacement 

for it. Passenger rail can be a costly project, but it would be 

implemented in phases and would provide a more 

comprehensive solution than bus travel can offer.

10/26/15 Steven S. Kuwahara

It is clear that the yellow corridor makes the most sense. My personal concerns would be to 

have the train stations in Tucson and Phoenix located to allow easy connections with the local 

rapid transit systems. The airport to airport connection would be very good, also. Given the 

amount of sunlight in AZ, would it be possible to use photovoltaic systems to at least provide 

some of the power for the system. I feel that a major point here is to reduce green house gas 

emissions, and make it easier for seniors to move between Tucson and Phoenix. My only 

comment, as a new comer to AZ, is why hasn't this system been built already? It seems like a 

logical thing to do.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Stephanie Derivan

No, no, no!!!!!! Please do not put a passenger rail line in down here. We moved here for the 

small town feel and do not want mass transit. Just NO!!!!!!!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Chris Stang

I frequently drive from Phoenix to Tucson for my healthcare needs at the University of Arizona 

medical center (now owned by Banner). I would greatly appreciate, and utilize, a passenger rail 

system between Phoenix and Tucson. I don’t have a preference on a recommended route; I 

just want you to know that there is 1 more potential consumer out there that would take full 

advantage of this rail offering if it were available.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Ridership estimates conducted as part of this Tier 1 EIS have 

indicated the potential for over 2,500 daily riders between 

Phoenix and Tucson, and over 15,000 shorter trips in the 

Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.

10/26/15 josie_james@...

How come the passenger rail can't begin in the Buckeye area at the I-10 and run the length of 

the I-10? The median of the I-10 could contain the rail. The proposed rail beginning in the East 

Valley does not do service to the rest of the taxpayers.

The Tier 1 EIS covers the connection between the two largest 

population centers in the state from downtown Tucson to 

downtown Phoenix. In estimating the potential ridership, 

however, connections to Buckeye, Surprise and Tucson 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -83

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

International Airport were included. These connections 

would be the subject of more detailed analysis in later phases 

of work.

10/26/15 John Fusting

I am responding to the proposed rail corridor between Phoenix and Tucson. I have traveled 

around many of the world largest cities and between them by rail. The one thing they all have 

in common is the infrastructure in each of the large connecting cities. They have connecting 

rail, bus, subway or are walking cities. Phoenix and Tucson do not have good connecting rail, 

bus or subway and definitely are not walking cities, particularly at 100 degree plus weather. 

The connecting rail and bus only go to limited locations and passes through very undesirable 

neighborhoods. Buses are nearly none existent in the far east and west valleys. The existing 

rail doesn't even connect at the PHX without transferring to another means of transport. I'll 

never understand why a connecting tram was not utilized? Consequently, nothing is my 

recommendation unless the existing infrastructure extending out from any station along the 

stops in the line is put in place long before the trains are put into service.

The local transit systems in both Phoenix and Tucson are 

expanding rapidly and provide good connections to many 

important destinations. Sky Harbor now has a connecting 

SkyTrain system that links the light rail line to the airport. As 

proposed, the commuter/intercity rail line would access the 

SkyTrain system in the same location.

10/26/15 James Maloney

Considering the amount of time this “Rail Project” will take from this date (10/26/2015) to 

sometime in the NOT foreseeable future I would like to observe that the cost(s) of the project 

will probably see a permutation in growth (Dollar Costs) of at least 300% to 500% given the 

cost overrun “incentives” of past Arizona endeavors. Therefore why not, here and now, define 

this project as an ELECTRIC Rail Corridor? At the VERY BEST it will take until 2045 or 2050 to 

have your system up and running and by that time solar energy will probably be a mandatory 

system requirement via the Federal Government and by DOT. The concept and idea for this rail 

corridor is an excellent one given the facts surrounding Interstate10. I-10 is presently a “Death 

Trap” (between PHX and TUC) due to the number of semi-trucks on the highway and the 

congestion such vehicles contribute to!

The cost of the project is presented in 2013 dollars. The costs 

will rise over time as a result of the time value of money, if 

not the actual project costs. The technology for this project 

has not been defined. The assumption used was for 125 mph, 

but it would be possible to operate at a higher speed under 

the right conditions. Higher speeds would also most likely 

require electrification, which requires a substantial additional 

investment. In a next phase of study, such as a subsequent

NEPA study along with the supporting analyses, a technology 

would be evaluated based on the best fit for the corridor and 

in consideration of costs and ridership potential.

10/26/15 Brandt Dary

I’d like to cast my vote for the Yellow Line, which goes through Queen Creek, since I am a 

resident.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -84

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Kevin Jenkins

Please make this rail happen! I travel all of the time from Phoenix to Tucson and would ride 

this instead of driving every time. I will do anything and everything to support the rail, 

especially as the Mesa Gateway Airport continues to develop. Please let me know if you have 

any questions but please note I will support either route.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Mike Neel

Yellow line makes sense to me and as I read the literature and view the YouTube video it 

seems the delays to move on to phase 2 are mostly administrative. What can be done to move 

this initiative along more expeditiously? To attract business and support economic growth the 

under pinning of a reliable and cost effective rail service connecting Phoenix and Tucson seems 

obvious. Further, connecting the WEST VALLEY is required; perhaps this link should be done 

first? The intersection of the 303 and I-10 seems a logical edge to the rail serving the entire 

west valley. Our region seems to be under served.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Tier 1 EIS covers the connection between the two largest 

population centers in the state from downtown Tucson to 

downtown Phoenix. In estimating the potential ridership, 

however, connections were included that connect to 

Buckeye, Surprise and Tucson International Airport. These 

connections would be the subject of more detailed analysis in 

later phases of work. Funding has not yet been defined and it 

would take support from multiple sources to generate the 

needed funds. 

10/26/15 Anya Alberts

In our opinion the passenger railroad should not have been abandoned in the first place, There

used to be train service. Yes, for the railroad BUT in your plans you do not mention the west 

side (valley) A lot of travelers will come from that area too, It is only mentioned that service

will be from the East Valley. Don't forget (as was done in the past) that the west valley needs 

to be included. Where does the money come from? Well, there seems to be enough money 

available for the Grand Ave/Bell project, That is so ridiculous in pricing, make that project 

cheaper and easier on the construction by letting the train go over Bell Road, and not the 

other way around, That way Bell does not have to be closed for 7 months and people can 

keep their jobs, stores can remain open, Money saved on that could go towards the rail 

connection.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Tier 1 EIS covers the connection between the two largest 

population centers in the state from downtown Tucson to 

downtown Phoenix. In estimating the potential ridership, 

however, connections were included that connect to 

Buckeye, Surprise and Tucson International Airport. These 

connections would be the subject of more detailed analysis in 

later phases of work. 

10/26/15 Danielle Cummings

As a professional that works with individuals with visual impairments, this type of public 

transportation would mean a great deal to our community. Having an alternative to driving or 

only having the option of the airport shuttle is extremely limiting and would open many doors 

to many people. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal as it is truly a step forward 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -85

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

for Arizona. As an individual living in Prescott, I would utilize this type of public transportation 

from Phoenix to Tucson as I often make this trip for work purposes. It would allow me to park 

in Phoenix, conduct my business there, then be able to take the public transport the rest of the 

way to Tucson, saving my company (the state) gas money and wear and tear on the car. I 

would be one less car stuck in traffic and I could be more productive on the way being able to 

get work done. I highly support this proposal.

10/26/15 phxltc@...

I think the preferred alternative looks great. I saw that Amtrak was one of the entities involved 

with the planning. It would be great if as part of this process Amtrak service through Phoenix 

could be reestablished. If Amtrak could contribute some funds, that would also be beneficial. I 

would like to see this get constructed as soon as possible.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Funding from all sources would be considered.

10/26/15 Martha Louzy

This looks great to me. I vote yellow. I am hoping eventually you will expand to Sierra Vista and 

link it all. Sierra Vista (or Benson) to Tucson To Phoenix (and vice versa).

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

A possible connection to Sierra Vista would be part of a 

future study.

10/26/15 Charles Scheps

As a former New Yorker, my work necessitated frequent travel between New York City and 

Albany, a distance for me of approximately 180 miles. My viable travel options for these trips 

were almost entirely between driving or taking Amtrak (the other options being flying or 

taking a bus). Although taking the train extended the timeframe somewhat (due to being 

restricted to the train schedule), the trip was without a doubt far more pleasant, whether I 

used that time for relaxing or getting some work done. Not having to sit behind the wheel as 

the driver, or be a passenger if I carpooled, made the trip much more pleasant. In spite of the 

above, however, another significant factor entered into my choice of transportation method - 

i.e., what would I be doing when I got to Albany. The bottom line is, if I was going to one site, 

then I could readily take a cab from the train station. However, If I needed to be mobile, then 

in realistic terms it no longer made sense for me not to have my car. In essence, therefore, 

what I'm suggesting is the need to factor in the availability to commuters of local 

transportation options. While they obviously cannot be part of this project per se, they should 

be made a necessary adjunct, so that additional local travel enhancements make use of the 

passenger rail a more convenient option as well.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Local services would need to support the passenger rail 

service at destination locations to provide access where 

needed. This has been considered in the analysis, but specific

details of how those services would be provided would be a 

local decision (e.g., taxi, bicycle, Uber, bus, light rail, 

streetcar, etc.)
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -86

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Joel Hamburg

I believe the time is now to construct a rail system not only between Phoenix and Tucson but 

throughout the entire United States. This should be our "Moon Program.” As far at the 

discussion on rail service between Phoenix and Tucson, I agree that the Yellow Alternative is 

the best place to start. I am pleased to see Arizona moving in this direction. We lag behind so 

many other countries in the world as far as rail systems go.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Ann Norbut

This is just a comment to say that I agree with the choice of the yellow option for the 

Passenger Rail of the future. One of the main reasons is that it goes through my town of 

Gilbert, AZ. This town will probably not ever get light rail as Mesa is working on right now. 

Queen Creek will also be brought into the metro community through the passenger rail 

system. Many people now living in those two communities take the light rail for Phoenix 

activities, driving to the eastern end of line in Mesa. With the advent of passenger rail, there 

would be an easier option to make the trip to downtown Phoenix even for daily work.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The passenger train would complement light rail, street car 

and bus services in a number of locations along the corridor.

10/26/15 Jessica K. Kamrath

I support the yellow line and hope there will be a stop in Queen Creek. As a commuter that 

lives in Queen Creek (I work and go to school in Tempe) I absolutely love an alternative to 

driving to work. I also like to attend events and visit other communities and this would be a 

great way to have access to other cities without driving. Please consider making a stop in a 

growing community - Queen Creek. Yes to the Yellow Line!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 USN779RET@...

IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA TO ME. COULD / WOULD TAKE SOME OF THE "STRESS & 

TRAFFIC JAMS AWAY.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Nathan Tenney

It might be beneficial to seek out state and local businesses for supplies, construction, and 

contracting in order to ease the tax burden on the community. I am in favor of the Yellow Line 

rail option and know that it would benefit me, the town of Gilbert, and the entire East Valley 

immensely. Thank you for your wise consideration of the Yellow Line rail.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -87

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Ronald W Hill

Seriously? You honestly believe there is a NEED for this? You don't have a clue how many 

times I have thought to myself ..."I would love to go to Tucson for few hours if there only was a 

train." Let's see, by the time I drive to a designated parking lot, take a shuttle from that lot to 

the train then ride for an hour or more only to be dumped off someplace nowhere near to 

where I want to be and the take a shuttle/bus/taxi to where I actually want to be I would have 

saved no time and spent more money! Makes all the sense in the world.

The region’s highways (I-10 in particular) will experience very 

high congestion in the relatively near future as a result of 

high growth in the corridor between Phoenix and Tucson. 

That assumes I-10 is widened to at least 8 lanes (four in each 

direction) throughout the corridor. The consideration of a 

passenger rail system is offered as a complement to the 

highway (I-10, mostly), not a replacement for it because it 

provides additional capacity in the corridor and an alternative 

to driving. Connections would require another mode at the 

destination, much the way an airport works.

10/26/15 Brian Pickett

I concur with the recommendation to go with the Yellow Alternative as it would help drive 

efficiency from a cost and deployment perspective and higher-level usage. I was curious if 

there was consideration given to an alternative route that would align closer to Route 87 / I10 

sooner that Eloy which would allow the ability to have a closer connection to the I10 / I8 split.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative provides for an option that 

connects to/from I-10 in the vicinity of SR 87. It is coincident 

with the southern section of the proposed North-South 

Corridor.

10/26/15 Paul Leitman

I agree with the Passenger Rail Study's recommendation that the Yellow Corridor be the 

preferred alternative. I believe that if financed, constructed and operated, it would be a great 

asset to the future of the Sun Corridor. It holds the greatest potential to encourage dense land 

use in proximity of the stations, to replace SOV trips in the metropolitan area, and to enhance 

accessibility of Phoenix, Tucson, and destinations in between.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Pat Olson

I'm sad to see that the Orange Corridor has lost out. I do believe the Yellow is definitely viable 

and it is important to reach the Gateway Airport. I feel there will be more growth in the more 

"far" east valley, though. Using the Yellow corridor could hinder that to some degree. Since 

Florence is the county seat for Pinal county I also feel the Yellow corridor should get as close to 

there a possible. I only hope there is a way to expedite this process. It always seems to take so 

long to complete this process here in AZ. (Look at the time it took for I-10....it was the last 

piece finished when the rest of the country was long done)

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The ultimate alignment is not yet determined and your 

comments will be taken into account when alignment 

alternatives are formulated. The primary determinant of 

serving population centers is where the activities are today 

with a secondary consideration of where they could be 

tomorrow.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -88

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/26/15 Celeste Gornick

It appears that the yellow route between Phoenix and Tucson would require less impact 

overall. Using existing rail lines makes sense. Why re-invent the wheel?

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The project would, however, require new rail as the 

operating levels for passenger rail are much higher than the 

existing allowances on the freight line.

10/26/15 Wayne Richard Mason

I enthusiastically support proceeding with building a rail connection between Phoenix and 

Tucson. Not only would it help coordinate the commercial strengths of each city, but it should 

enhance communication and exchange between the University of Arizona and Arizona State 

University, but in terms of making it easier for students of one institution to take classes at the 

other but also for interaction among professors. Of the two choices, the only benefit that I can 

identify from the Orange configuration is the stop at Gateway Airport in Mesa. If the rail line is 

going to bypass Gateway as shown in the Yellow configuration, I think the long-term future of 

Gateway is in doubt unless the Phoenix light rail extends there at some point. It is also 

imperative that the rail lines link Downtown Phoenix with Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Finally, 

consideration should be given to extending the line to Puerto Penasco (Rocky Point) in Mexico, 

particularly in light of the cruise ship terminal that is under construction there. If the rail line 

connects the major international airports at PHX and TUS, it could result in a significant 

increase to tourism in both cities when added to a weeklong cruise from Mexico.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study.

The Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport would be served from 

the passenger rail line regardless of which alternative is 

ultimately built. The other routes you mention are part of 

ongoing investigations and would be developed more 

thoroughly over the coming years. Preliminary analyses are 

that some of those connections are favorable to the PhoenixTucson connection.

10/26/15 Heidi Noperi

I love the idea of a railroad between Tucson and Phoenix. Do you think it would be worthwhile 

to consider the train going from Phoenix to Benson, and maybe using part of the regular 

railway. I know many people from Sierra Vista are driving to Tucson daily, and to Phoenix 

almost quite as often. I am a handicapped person had have to drive to the Phoenix hospital 

quite often. Eventually it will be too hard for me to drive. I am sure I am not the only one. I am 

actually quite excited that you are planning this way of transportation. It would help so many 

people. It could be paid off partially by charging the people a little more for using the train, or 

increase the state taxes until the train is paid off.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Commuter rail services beyond Tucson have not been studied 

in this project, but could be added to the Phoenix-Tucson 

corridor in the future. Funding has not yet been defined and 

it will take support from multiple sources to generate the 

needed funds. 

10/26/15 April Ritchie

Positive impact for the state: Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Your points are all consistent with the findings and insights 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -89

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

1. decreased traffic on a very dangerous strip of highway 

2. reduced accidents on the freeway, which is used by many large trucks. The accidents are 

usually fatal.

3. provide opportunities for travel for older adults to connect with families in both cities, 

safely.

4. provide safe travel to both universities, reducing the need for cars for students.

5. increase tourism by providing safe, reasonable transportation to communities along the 

way.

6. increase business for all the communities and businesses along the route.

7. improve the state image of a progressive state!!!!! 

I have children, grandchildren in phx and live in Tucson. I also know many people in this same 

situation. As we age it would be wonderful to be able to still make the trip without the danger 

of driving. Thank you for all this group has done to advance this concept to this level.

developed in this study.

10/26/15 Steve Skotak

My only concern is how do you plan to monitor how passengers pay to ride. I believe the city 

of phoenix has allowed anyone to board the light rail in the city of Phoenix, they only monitor 

after the fact, and only do they site rarely do they. (there stats are wrong, and inaccurate) The 

light rail in Phoenix is the new DASH! I believe your new train system and along with an 

upgrade to the light rail (DASH) in phoenix should also be considered when looking at how will 

you monitor paying customers when boarding a train. I believe you need to get it right for the 

start, not like the city of phoenix, allowing anyone to board.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. Operating 

practices and fare enforcement have not yet been addressed 

for this project.

10/26/15 gl.7248@...

In my opinion this will be a waste of tax payer money. It will undoubtedly go way over budget, 

underutilized and poorly managed. I oppose this idea and others like it.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Carole Whipple

My preference would be to locate the rail service through Coolidge, Az. I attend many cultural 

events in the Valley and would definitely use the service. I would also use it to attend classes 

at Mesa Cultural Center. The line would bring new purpose to Coolidge and encourage 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The preferred alternative runs through Coolidge.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -90

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

profitable business. I am a property owner and have lived in Coolidge for 48 years.

10/26/15 Burt Binenfeld

It would be a great idea to get this railroad line. It would be better to share the right of way 

with Union Pacific Railroad. Yellow Route seems to be the best alternative.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT anticipates that an alignment alternative within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative would likely be located within or 

adjacent to the existing Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, 

although other alignments may be considered.

10/26/15 Emily Noel

I am in favor of building the rail, and I think the yellow or green route would make the most 

sense for me. I commute from Tucson to Scottsdale weekly.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Betty Cattuse

Hello!....mi name is Betty Catuse and I usually enjoy ride the bus or train for various reason, I 

have my own transportation, but I enjoy the freedom of not driving and stressfull traffic. I 

wonder why the train is not expand to the west valley were is so obvious the majority of

working class live in the area and is a millenion season were kids go to college work and shop 

and go out. I would think it would created more business and created more assest for

everyone instead thinking of building a rail system in 2035. What an opportunity wasted

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Mark M Giese

A rail option between Tucson and Phoenix might reduce air pollutant emissions and enhance 

highway safety.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Shirley Ward

I think that Arizona could be a model for other states, trying to cut down on their carbon 

footprint and reduce pollution, by building a rail system between these two cities. It would 

mean fewer cars, more jobs, more possibilities for small businesses at both ends of the rail line 

and a modern answer to connecting our two largest cities.

Either of the proposed lines would be a fantastic idea.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/26/15 Sandy Bauer

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Although specific design decisions would be evaluated in 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -91

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. future phases of the study as part of subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis, connections to Valley Metro 

light rail and Sun Link streetcar have been assumed as part of 

this Tier 1 EIS study. The Alternatives Analysis developed a 

detailed community readiness program for each potential 

station location along the route. The intent is to ensure that 

each community is prepared and can take full advantage of 

the availability of the service.

10/27/15 Molly Moore 

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Although specific design decisions would be evaluated in 

future phases of the study as part of subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis, connections to Valley Metro 

light rail and Sun Link streetcar have been assumed as part of 

this Tier 1 EIS study. The Alternatives Analysis developed a 

detailed community readiness program for each potential 

station location along the route. The intent is to ensure that 

each community is prepared and can take full advantage of 

the availability of the service.

10/27/15 Andrew Ryan

Please continue to move forward with the Phoenix- Tucson rail plan. I would also suggest to 

highlight the ability to possibly incorporate the ability to work with energy producers to utilize 

some of the rural areas for energy production as well to offset costs.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.

10/27/15 Candace Wilkinson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Although specific design decisions would be evaluated in 

future phases of the study as part of subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis, connections to Valley Metro 

light rail and Sun Link streetcar have been assumed as part of 

this Tier 1 EIS study. The Alternatives Analysis developed a 

detailed community readiness program for each potential 

station location along the route. The intent is to ensure that 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -92

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

each community is prepared and can take full advantage of 

the availability of the service.

10/27/15 Michael Sheldon Reed

Please model any Phoenix-Tucson service after the successful "Piedmont" service in North 

Carolina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train) The service is state-owned but gets a 

large chunk of Federal funding, especially for service improvements: 

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/pip/ 

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.

10/27/15 Miguel A Velez

I-10 route appears to make most sense due to existing lines of communication already 

established. Yellow route appears to provide most access to east valley. The critical issue is to 

ensure the rail would have comprehensive service to Sky Harbor Airport and TIA. Which makes 

yellow route even more viable as there could be a stop at Chandler Airport.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative provides access to Sky Harbor 

and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport as well as the large 

population base in the East Valley.

10/27/15 Rosalind Ferguson

We are now stuck in traffic on the grand limited bus. As I gaze to the right I look longingly at 

the rail tracks and wish for a commuter train. When are we going to catch up to the east coast 

and Europe? 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Sherry Mullens

I heartily support the idea of a passenger rail system between Phoenix and Tucson. The 

benefits of getting more people safely and quickly to both these major cities are obvious to the 

economic growth of our state. I hope that a continuation of the line from Tucson to Nogales is 

also being studied. With the emergence of a strong economic presence in our border region 

with Mexico, this would be a smart investment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Rebecca Hall

I am in support of the Tucson to Phoenix rail system and actually hope for expanded services 

by rail throughout the Valley and even to other cities such as San Diego, Portland, Seattle, and 

Denver. I also support any development or expansion of the Light rail system within the 

Phoenix area. Phoenix is such a huge spread-out metropolitan area, that it can use any 

assistance with reducing traffic, pollution and giving access to students or seniors who may not 

have cars or driving ability. Thanks You for moving forward on this

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study completed by 

the Federal Railroad Administration looked, at a very high 

level, at the possibilities of a high-speed rail service linking 

the main Arizona metro areas with destinations in California 

and Nevada. That report is available on the FRA website at 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17109. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -93

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/27/15 David Haglan

I support all rail options. I would prefer the yellow line. I live in the city of Tempe. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Kirby Maxson

I am a Gilbert resident who chose to move here because Gilbert has an atmosphere that no 

other city in the Phoenix metropolitan area can offer. Which is why we see so much growth 

and new businesses popping up daily. I commend the city of Gilbert for being so choosy with 

the growth and allowed tenants. This has allowed Gilbert to maintain it charm. But this charm 

would be destroyed by the proposed passenger corridor linking Phoenix and Tucson. The rail 

corridor will only increase traffic, as residents on their commutes will be forced to stop and 

wait for the increased train activity. The corridor would be a huge waste of taxpayer money. 

Plain and simple, Arizonans do not utilize public transit as other cities do. If people aren't using 

the light-rail to go to downtown Phoenix, why would one assume that they would use a rail 

corridor to go to Tucson? There is no demand to link the two cities together. I strongly oppose 

the rail corridor. I think that such a decision should not be made by officials. The people should 

have a say. I am a firm believer if this was put up to vote, that that this would not pass. I vote 

NO for any rail corridor connecting Phoenix and Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Hilary Hirsch

As a native-born Arizonan, I believe that this passenger rail system is long overdue. Commerce 

between Tucson and Phoenix is growing and the two largest metropolitan cities need a public 

transportation system to connect the two. This asset will be an investment in Arizona's future 

public infrastructure and will advance our economy's growth and competitiveness on a global 

scale.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Anthony Colbert

I work in Tempe and live in Casa Grande and think this would be a great idea. I travel 38 miles 

one way by myself. I have been making this commute for the past 9 years

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Judy Slack

I prefer the Orange Alternative. I think it will serve the needs of the community more 

effectively.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -94

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/27/15 Rachel Bliss

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Although specific design decisions would be evaluated in

future phases of the study as part of a subsequent planning 

and environmental analysis, connections to Valley Metro 

light rail and Sun Link streetcar have been assumed as part of 

this Tier 1 EIS study. The Alternatives Analysis developed a 

detailed community readiness program for each potential 

station location along the route. The intent is to ensure that 

each community is prepared and can take full advantage of 

the availability of the service.

10/27/15 R.J. Lancaster

I love the idea. How about making 2-3 rail cars for transporting autos and trucks for people to 

use when they arrive in Tucson or Phoenix? Thank you for the job.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The idea of carrying personal vehicles was not evaluated in 

this study. While not typical of commuter rail services, this 

could be considered in later analyses.

10/27/15 Nic Maxson

I am a Gilbert resident who ultimately would be greatly affected by this proposal. I would like 

to express a "no build" comment. The cons outweigh any benefits given. The commute 

between Tucson and Phoenix does not have a daily affect on a majority of our community. The 

rail systems we have in place in downtown Phoenix lack of use should show you how well this 

alternative would turn out. Your yellow corridor would result in such negatives for me, my 

family and my community.

1) local commuters no doubt would have an extended travel time waiting on your trains to 

pass 2) damaging animal species and habitats 3) bringing down property values and ruining 

Gilbert's small town charm by increasing train travel 4) increase public safety of potentially 

having a train that is capable of 120 mph derailing in our community or even having that much 

more interaction with small traffic like school buses, bike paths etc.) you are considering a 

project you have no funds for and then doing it in phases so that we run the risk of yet another 

uncompleted project and many years of construction that still don't benefit a majority of the 

people. Again, I wish to express a "NO BUILD" option and will also make an effort to spread the 

word among Gilbert residences to do the same. You say in your video 56% vote for less traffic 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The light rail system in Phoenix carries twice its forecast 

ridership and spurred economic development in the corridor 

it serves. 1) Local commuters could benefit from the 

commuter rail service rather than drive to their destination.

Most of the line would operate at grade, but grade 

separations would be installed over time. Wait times for atgrade crossings would be evaluated in the subsequent

studies. 2) Protection of wildlife corridors and habitats would 

be part of the mitigation plan for the project. It would be 

defined in the subsequent environmental document. 3) 

Property values in the vicinity of stations tend to rise over 

time because of the improved access to the rail mode. 4) 

While derailments happen occasionally, they are very 

infrequent. Still, you make a good point that the safety of the 

design of a passenger rail service would need to consider all 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -95

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

as our cities grow which is obvious no one enjoys traffic but this proposal is not a viable option 

will not be utilized as you project it to be and will ultimately spoil the love I have for my 

current community.

eventualities. Trains would not operate at 120 mph within 

the urban areas. 5) Each phase of work would be expected to 

have "independent utility" so that it could stand on its own 

even if nothing else were built. 

10/27/15 Charles E Downs

Please do not burden the state payers with another project that cannot produce enough 

revenue to support itself. We do not need another drain on the state revenues and tax payer

pockets.

Funding for the passenger rail project has not yet been

identified, but the project is likely to occur in phases and seek 

funding from multiple sources, both private and public.

10/27/15 Ashba Nesbitt

I would like to see the Yellow corridor move forward. It serves the most people, is the most 

cost effective, and has the least environmental impact. As the population continues to grow 

we to have as many viable options as possible.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 nguyentammar2@...

I think it's important to have a reliable and usable reliever airport. The route should include 

access to the AZA airport as it would help alleviate problems associated with traveling to and 

from that airport. Plus it would be a major benefit in the event something happens at PHX 

airport. Additionally in Tucson, the route should go all the way to TUS airport as current 

options are limited. On another note, it's too bad that the route won't be able to connect to an 

Amtrak station near Phoenix. A current connection in downtown Tucson is already really 

awesome. One last suggestion, the rail should have its own crossing at all intersections for the 

safety of everyone. There have been way too many accidents at at-grade crossings due to 

technical malfunctions and human error.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Both corridor alternatives provide connections to Sky Harbor 

and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway airports. Based on public and 

agency input, ADOT and FRA will commit to extending 

passenger rail service to TUS in subsequent planning and 

environmental studies. 

Most of the line would operate at grade, but grade 

separations would be installed over time. For at-grade 

crossings the operating characteristics of the passenger trains 

would require four-quadrant gates, which prevent drivers

from illegally driving around lowered gates, to maximize 

safety.

10/27/15 Nancy Anacker

Please build this rail line as quickly as possible. I drive to Phoenix from Tucson regularly and 

would much rather ride the train. It just makes sense.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -96

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/27/15 amnguyen1014@...

Are there any better alternatives than using diesel engines? Are there any faster alternatives 

that are eco friendly? If trip times between PHX and TUS could be closer to 1 hour that would 

be great. There shouldn't be any at-grade crossings. Safety is a huge consideration and 

separate grades would help decrease the number of incidents at intersections. If possible, the 

routes should also be accessible to education facilities like ASU and U of A, airports (TUS, AZA, 

PHX), and current or future Amtrak rail stations. It would also be nice if they connected well 

with current transit centers in all cities involved also. Will these trains be able to run during 

storms such as heavy monsoon rains or haboobs?

The technology for this project has not been defined. The 

assumption used was for 125 mph as a basis for estimating 

travel times and ridership, but it would be possible to 

operate at a higher speed under the right conditions in some

segments of the corridor. Higher speeds would also most 

likely require electrification, which requires a substantial 

additional investment. 

Most of the line would operate at grade, but grade 

separations would be installed over time. For at-grade 

crossings the operating characteristics of the passenger trains 

would require four-quadrant gates, which prevent drivers 

from illegally driving around lowered gates, to maximize 

safety.

The concept for the corridor is to serve all of the major 

education institutions and at least the Amtrak station in 

Tucson. 

During a major storm, it is likely that train activity would be 

curtailed not necessarily because of an inability to function, 

but for the safety of any other people or vehicles in the 

vicinity.

10/27/15 Francis Schilling

Clearly, from a SE Pima County resident (Vail), the Yellow Alternative is superior. When you 

can get me from Tucson to Phoenix in under 1.5 hours my interest is beyond piqued. Higher 

ROW costs are more than offset by the lower capital costs in my opinion and the increased 

business from southern Arizonans (like me) who avoid the I-10 suicide mission to Phoenix like 

the plague would be larger than predicted from speaking to many, many people in this area. If 

one is to consider ancillary effects like increased sales, venue sell outs, hotel and restaurant 

revenues and the like then it must be Go On Yellow (as the NHRA likes to say). Thanks you very 

much for considering my opinion.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -97

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/27/15 awoodwar@...

I don't think a rail system would take very much traffic out of the I-10 corridor from Tucson to 

Phoenix. Adding a bus system would be a lot cheaper and would give an accurate measure of 

ridership. If a person takes a train/bus to Phx, they still have to get around the city. So they 

rent a car or take public transportation. When the total cost is added up it may be cost 

effective to drive the whole trip, and the convenience of having your own vehicle is worth the 

extra cost.

Buses were studied as part of the Alternatives Analysis that 

preceded the Tier 1 EIS. They are certainly able to provide a 

high quality service, but they cannot carry the anticipated 

travel demand of a train and cannot do so at the speeds of a 

higher speed train. Congestion levels in the next 20 years are 

expected to increase substantially leading to travel times 

between Phoenix and Tucson of over three hours even if I-10 

is widened to eight lanes (four lanes in each direction) 

throughout. A passenger rail option would not be subject to 

those limitations.

10/27/15 Jill Dusenberry City of Coolidge, Asst. 

City Manager

I support the recommendation utilizing the yellow route. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/27/15 Bradley Haase

I like the yellow route. Just went to Tucson last weekend, the 10 is a nightmare. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Douglas Lightsey

The passenger rail should go in the middle of the 10 freeway. Once it goes through phoenix 

build it up and have it ending at the old Amtrak station in phoenix. This way any future rails 

can be connected such as to Flagstaff, California, Las Vegas, etc. as far as station, Phoenix, 

Wildhorse Pass, Casa Grande, Marana and Tucson.

The Green Alternative was eliminated because it did not 

attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not 

effectively serve as many key population centers within the 

study corridor, and presented a high degree of potential 

cultural resource impacts. The preferred alternative, the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative, would serve the highest 

population centers. Connections to other western cities have 

been assessed preliminarily by the federal government and 

were shown to provide further benefits to the PhoenixTucson route.

10/28/15 Amber Trimble

Please create a public rail system from Tucson to Phoenix! What a wonderful opportunity to 

show that AZ is considering the environment by offering a good solid public transportation 

option other than the car. AZ is known for their wonderful freeways and roadways, but we are 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -98

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

also known for the "brown cloud" that hangs over Phoenix. If a railway is done correctly, with 

stops at interim cities, new businesses will be created in those areas. Bravo!

10/28/15 Connor Descheemaker Local First Arizona

Passenger rail is absolutely essential for growing metro areas such as Phoenix and Tucson. 

Both are absolutely sprawling metropolises, wherein transportation options are few, leaving 

barriers to travel high. For greater economic investment and prosperity, we must innovate, 

particularly in transportation, and rail is a prime means of doing so. We must weigh the costs 

of building rail against the costs of highway construction evenly, along with their potential 

economic return, and environmental impact. All that being said, I prefer the Yellow Alternative 

for its greater inclusion of Pinal County, and shared ROW with current Union Pacific tracks. 

That shared ROW is preferable in my opinion because of linking our transit history, and usage 

in a more compatible way.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is a mile-wide corridor that 

would serve the largest population centers. ADOT anticipates 

that an alignment alternative within this corridor would likely 

be located within or adjacent to the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad right-of-way, although other alignments may be 

considered.

10/28/15 Craig Krivin

I think bringing back passenger rail to the Valley and Tucson is a great idea to help reduce 

traffic, pollution and cost for travel in the region. I am not familiar enough with the two 

different routes proposed through Metro Phoenix to weigh in on the merits of one vs. the 

other, but overall I think this is a much needed transportation system.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Mary Gallas

I concur with your analysis, favoring the yellow option route as the most beneficial to Phoenix 

area. Especially the East Valley and Pima county which have expanded significantly, and will 

continue to do so.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Kurt Kneip

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. In my opinion, I 

believe in staying with the status quo and not building the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor at 

all. The unknowns with costs far outweigh the benefits and the money can be better spent on 

a number of other initiatives. Please do not proceed with this project. Thank you.

The rail system is proposed as an alternative to the personal 

vehicle and the freeway. In the future, even with I-10 

widened to eight lanes (four in each direction) throughout 

the Phoenix-Tucson Corridor, congestion will be a primary 

determinant of travel decisions. . The status quo is most likely 

not a viable option given expected changes.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -99

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Barbara Foster

Thanks for doing this. I agree with the Yellow Corridor option. Bring it on and please hurry. 

Thanks again.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Peter Mather

After driving from Phoenix to Tucson and back the last weekend of September 2015, I realized 

that we need a rail system between the two cities. The traffic was really bad, and that was a 

weekend not a weekday.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Kate Randall

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Robert Bowers

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

It is important to connect both the Tucson and Phoenix airports to assure the best options in 

the future.

It is important that these projects begin as soon as practically possible.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service. Transitoriented development was an important consideration for 

this effort. All three major airports would have a connection 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -100

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

to the passenger rail system.

10/28/15 Erin Eccleston

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 David Tang

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

I will personally use it multiple times weekly.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Elna Otter

I have been hoping for a rail line between Phoenix and Tucson for years now. It finally looks 

like it might happen in the foreseeable future!!

I want this for the personal convenience, but also to lessen the need for cars in our state. We 

need to cut back on driving, and rail is an ideal answer.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -101

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

I hope that the public transit within Tucson and Phoenix will support it.

10/28/15 Bob Sommer

It would be so much safer and easier than driving. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 John Lies

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Carl Perry

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Larry Schnebly

Having lived in Tucson since 1953, it seems to me that all the talk over so many years, might 

SOMEDAY bear fruit...that creating a rail transportation option between Tucson and Phoenix 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -102

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

may actually become a REALITY!

Congratulations!~

Let's keep this ball bouncing! Sooner or later, it will happen! (I H O P E !! !! )

10/28/15 William T Sellers

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Mary M Cornes

Thank you for requesting public comments. I strongly recommend building passenger rail 

service between Tucson and Phoenix. This would aid college students, tourists, and people like 

me who travel as a disabled person. 

Lived many years in Northern Virginia, and travelled frequently, over numerous years, from DC 

to NYC by train. 

Please build the recommended route!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Will Stone

I support the proposed passenger rail yellow corridor. It is the most cost effective and will 

serve the east valley. I currently live in the Tucson area but I'm originally from the Mesa area 

so we travel frequently to the Mesa area to visit family. I also think that the passenger rail will 

make it more appealing to live in Tucson and commute to Phoenix for work or vice versa. It will 

help spur the growth in Tucson. I would also support private funding for the passenger rail; I 

believe the use of private funds is inherently more cost efficient. I don't support putting the 

burden on the taxpayers to fund this. There is enough potential revenue that it should be 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Funding for the passenger rail project has not yet been 

identified, but the project is likely to occur in phases and seek 

funding from multiple sources, both private and public.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -103

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

appealing to private investors. Since this project is in the beginning stages it is difficult to 

attract private investing because the true costs cannot be ascertained until a corridor is chosen 

and development costs can be more accurately determined.

10/28/15 Kim Ortega

My opinion on which route for the railway to link to Tucson (from someone who lives in San 

Tan Valley) would be either of the yellow or the orange route options. I would take use of the 

railway if it was convenient. Located at these two places that would allow me to do that. I have 

many friends also that live in the Gilbert Chandler area that would find these routes more

available to actually use the railway than the green option.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Ellen Filler

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Bruce Ero

Great idea putting in a passenger rail system between PHX and TUC. I never go to PHX because 

of the traffic speed, amount, carelessness, and cost. And it is a dull, droning trip.

The system would open Sky Harbor to me; also to take in a hockey or football game. Access to 

the Heard Museum and MLB Spring Training would be other plusses for me. Hope it gets done.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Alanna Brook

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -104

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Gary LaMaster

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Paul Bakalis

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Please spend our hard earned money on things like this that encourage us to ride public transit 

instead of wasting money on highways that cause more consumption of natural resources, 

increase carbon in the atmosphere, and poison our air.

Be the ADOT (transportation), not highways.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -105

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Eugene Sougstad

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for moving forward with Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail. I encourage you to 

continue with the necessary next steps.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Beverly Janowitz-Price

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Mills Tandy

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -106

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Doris Tillman

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Stephanie Bader

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for moving forward with the passenger rail project. I would travel regularly to 

Phoenix if I didn't have to drive (I promise I will buy season tickets to the Mercury [Theater] as 

soon as the train option is available).

It's better for the environment, reduces carbon footprint, maintenance on road infrastructure, 

and unhealthy emissions, and ease of transit will be a boost for businesses in both locations. 

As a Pima County tax payer I am willing to fund our fair share in order to see the passenger rail 

come to fruition.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Matthew Kaplan

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -107

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Denise Hudson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Mel Meter

I’ve lived here in Phoenix all my life. The valley and the state are growing and this is needed to 

allow travelers who cannot or prefer not to drive on I-10 but need a faster form of 

transportation between the 2 cities. It will be well used and ultimately will remove vehicles off 

the roads and allow us to breathe easier. I’m all for not driving unless I absolutely have to. 

Public or private transportation is needed to fill this need. We aren’t California or the 

Northwest where they have AMTRAK or other commuter rail but it sure would be nice to have 

the option, I’d vote to pay more taxes for this if I didn’t have to drive.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -108

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Kip Goldman

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Rebecca Grubaugh

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Cindy Ballesteros

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -109

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Matthew Kaplan

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Nina Ballinger

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Paige Murphy-Young

Thank you for your efforts and creativity in moving forward concerning a possible passenger 

train between Phoenix and Tucson. Please continue this work and see this long-awaited and 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -110

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

desperately needed project through to fruition.

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Paul Maseman

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to comment. I have recent experience with AMTRAK on 

the East Coast, the Washington DC Metro system, and also with the Irish rail system.

1. Keep it simple and economical!

 - Use a direct route from Tucson to Phoenix following existing right-of-way!

 - Detouring through Chandler and Williams Airport takes considerably more time and only 

rewards various land speculators at taxpayers’ expense. Build a "branch line" to Chandler later

if it's economically justified.

 - It might be more advantageous to model this system on something like the Washington, 

DC Metro rail system rather that a high-speed interstate system.

 2. High-speed is not necessary!

 - On a 100-mile trip with 3-5 stops, the time difference between a 60 mph and a 100 mph 

top speed is minimal and not relevant.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Travel times on I-10 are expected to lengthen considerably in 

the future to well over 3 hours. The train serves as an 

alternative and a complement to I-10 and would allow riders 

to make the trip in less time (about 90 minutes vs. 3 hours by 

auto) without experiencing congestion. Speed is an element 

of ensuring ridership because people want to travel quickly. 

That was evident in our surveys over the course of the study. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts associated with implementing passenger rail within 

in the corridor alternatives, a passenger rail system within 

the Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. 

10/28/15 John Maynard

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -111

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Bettina Bickel

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. Passenger 

rail will provide a transportation option that is good for our economy and our environment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Pat Kryzak

I like trains have used them on multiple trips. We need to improve rail services. We could use 

some rail services in the west valley as well.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Leland Wilson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -112

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Kay Accordino

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Eric Ossowski

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. It is a good 

step forward in the future for Arizona and the environment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Ben Bethel

While I'm supportive of Phoenix to Tucson rail, it needs to be high-speed rail at 225mph or 

greater. And I think our efforts are a bit misguided - we should be focusing on PHX to Yuma to 

Palm Springs to San Bernardino high-speed rail, as this would then connect with California's 

high-speed rail system due for completion in 2022...

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The technology for this project has not been defined. The 

assumption used was for 125 mph, but it would be possible 

to operate at a higher speed under the right conditions. 

Higher speeds would also most likely require electrification, 

which requires a substantial additional investment. That 

evaluation would be addressed before a final subsequent
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -113

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

environmental document is completed.

Regarding destinations outside of the Tucson to Phoenix 

corridor, the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study 

completed by the Federal Railroad Administration looked, at 

a very high level, at the possibilities of a high-speed rail 

service linking the main Arizona metro areas with 

destinations in California and Nevada. That report is available 

on the FRA website at 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17109.

10/28/15 Francis Copple

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

In fact I would love to see not only rail service between Phoenix and Tucson but also between 

Phoenix and Las Vegas as part of a Nationwide high-speed rail system. In 1967 I wrote a paper 

advocating high-speed rail as a Junior in Engineering at the University of Iowa. My dream then 

as now is to be able to cross our country on high-speed rail. However, at the twilight of my 

years I do not think that I will live long enough to see this happen.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service. The federal 

government has evaluated the connections between Phoenix 

and California and Nevada and found them to be beneficial to 

travel within Arizona. No specific plans are yet under 

development.

10/28/15 Barbara Thompson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -114

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 John Oehler

We travel to the Phoenix area at least once a month, frequently more often. Train travel to 

and from Phoenix would be much safer & more convenient for us than automobile travel. 

Linking Tucson to Phoenix with passenger rail would be an important step in improving 

Arizona's transportation system, not only for regular visitors like ourselves, but for tourism & 

the overall economy as well. Please keep going with this plan.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Margaret Newman

Gasoline taxes do not currently pay for all the costs of building and maintaining our roadways. 

They require additional revenue from other sources, either sales or property taxes. Yes, 

passenger rail between may require a taxpayer subsidy, but it would be money well spent. By 

taking traffic off the roads and highways, it would reduce wear and tear and delay the need for 

repair and expansion.

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. In other 

words, "Get on board!"

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service. 

Funding for the passenger rail project has not yet been

identified, but the project is likely to occur in phases and seek 

funding from multiple sources, both private and public.

10/28/15 Steve Foss

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -115

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Michael and Roseanne 

Haboush

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Bret Fanshaw

Thanks for moving forward on a passenger rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.

This rail system is sorely needed. Traffic on the I-10 between these cities is often congested 

and dangerous.

I spent three weeks on the east coast in September and was able to travel hundreds of miles 

easily between New York City, Syracuse and Boston by train.

I was not alone - thousands of people use similar systems every day to commute and see 

friends and family. Those trends would be reflected by Arizonans here as well if we were given 

options like a passenger train.

I would also recommend that you explore solarizing the train, so that it takes advantage of our 

massive solar energy potential and reflects the renewable energy future that I and many 

others desire in order to protect our environment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

No technology has been proposed or selected in the EIS 

though relatively conservative assumptions have been made 

about the performance of a future system to forecast 

ridership and estimate costs. In a next phase, including a 

subsequent NEPA study along with the supporting analyses, a 

technology would be evaluated based on the best fit for the 

corridor and in consideration of costs and ridership potential.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -116

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 David Moore

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Barbara Acker

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Barbara Warren

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -117

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Dorothy Motheral

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Serena Unrein

Thank you for moving forward with Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail. I strongly urge you to 

continue to move this forward and find the funding to make passenger rail a reality.

As someone who frequently travels between Arizona's two largest cities for work and personal 

reasons, I would welcome and use the passenger rail option. Being able to take a train instead 

of driving would allow me to increase my productivity during travel and make more trips to 

Tucson for work.

We need to be providing more transportation options like Phoenix-Tucson rail because that's 

what our economy needs. More and more, people want to live in places that allow them to 

take modes of transportation other than driving. Tourists want to be able to get around 

without needing to rent a car.

Our health depends on expanded transportation options, too. Reducing the number of cars on 

the road will improve air quality, and hopefully, allow more Arizonans to live without asthma 

and lung disease.

Finally, please be sure that you connect passenger rail with existing and future transit in both 

Phoenix and Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 Jared Vogel

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -118

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Alberta Johnson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Jodi Bonney

Transportation studies in Arizona predict a great increase in population and travel within the 

state. I believe it is important to create a well functioning Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail 

service linking the two major Arizona cities, and provide connection with existing and future 

transit services between the cities and within each city to desired destinations. Having fewer 

cars on the roads will be safer and more convenient, if the transit services are planned and 

created well. Please keep on track with Phoenix-Tucson Passenger Rail! Thanks for your 

consideration.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -119

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Kenneth Magel

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Eve Shapiro

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Greg Nemeth

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -120

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Tylan Watkins

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Louis Edwards

Keep moving forward with Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail, and make that rail tap into the 

Amtrak rail that goes via Benson. Preferably with a spur to Sierra Vista.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

A connection to Sierra Vista could be a part of a future study 

if there is enough support for the service.

10/28/15 Tom Broderick

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -121

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Jeff McMahon

I'm happy to hear that ADOT is moving forward on passenger rail between Phoenix and 

Tucson.

Trends in Arizona necessitate an increase in public transit. It is important to ensure PhoenixTucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit services so that passenger rail 

can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. This should be as high a priority, if not 

higher, than building yet more freeways.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Laurel Watson

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Frank Thody

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -122

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Liz Hourican

Passenger rail travel options between Phoenix -Tucson would decrease dangerous air 

pollution. Decrease deadly accidents and improve Arizona in a big way for the future 

generation Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it 

is important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Safety is a major consideration in the selection of the 

preferred alternative and would need to be fully developed in 

later, more detailed levels of analysis. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 LJ Waggoner

Sure it would be “cool” to have passenger train service between Tucson and Phoenix, however 

I would question the expenditure when you still have unfinished projects in other areas. For 

instance, Hwy 260 east of Star Valley.

I find it strange you (we) have spent all this money over the past years to divide the hwy from 

Fountain Hills to Payson, and then most of it from Payson to the top of the rim at Woods 

Canyon Lake turnoff. But then, why not address the ridiculous fact traffic is still “funneled” 

thru Payson.

While I am on my little 2 cent soap box, I hope we are not paying the same company to fix hwy 

260 on a regular basis that was originally done in only the last few years. Bridge approaches, 

dips in the asphalt, etc.

If the rail is funded from a different source rather than what effects other highway 

projects.......have fun.

(Does this mean I-10 from Casa Grande to Firebird will never be widened as well?)

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Funding sources have not been defined for the project yet. 

They could private, public, or a combination of both. A publicprivate partnership could also be a possible source of 

financing.

Widening I-10 depends on many factors including funding, 

mitigating environmental impacts, and negotiating right-ofway with landowners, including the Gila River Indian 

Community.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -123

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/28/15 Jim Hillyard

I am a strong supporter of improved public transportation. As the Phoenix light rail shows, 

these infrastructure investments result in economic growth, more sustainable development, 

and increased economic mobility for hard-working Arizonans. Therefore, it is important to 

ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit services and 

that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service. 

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Arizona Corporation 

Commission Safety Division

The Arizona Corporation Commission's ("Commission") Railroad Safety Section, ("Staff'), would 

like to take this opportunity to comment on ADOT's Draft Tier I Environmental Impact 

Statement ("EIS") regarding the commuter rail study between Phoenix and Tucson. Staff has a 

long history cooperating with ADOT regarding the implantation of safety devices and 

elimination of safety hazards at grade crossings throughout Arizona. However, this is the first 

instance where Staff has commented on an alignment of a proposed commuter rail line. While 

the Commission's regulatory oversight is focused on the implementation of warning devices 

and the approval of modification or alteration to existing or construction of future crossings, 

whether at-grade or grade separated, Staff does have concerns regarding future rail projects in 

Arizona.

Staff firmly believes that establishing a rail corridor connecting Phoenix and Tucson would be 

an alternative to expanding traffic lanes for vehicular traffic on lnterstate 10 and would relieve 

highway congestion and reduce vehicle emissions. State and regional planning initiatives have 

recommended passenger rail alternatives to add travel capacity to what is currently offered by 

highways. Staff has reviewed the EIS and sees a benefit to Arizona from having an alternative 

to the automobile to travel between Phoenix and Tucson. While other modes of 

transportation were taken into consideration, such as express buses, the concept of a 

commuter train offers significant advantages. The ability to construct additional lanes on 

Interstate 10 is limited. Air travel was not considered because Staff believes suburban and 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -124

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

rural areas between Phoenix and Tucson need to be connected.

The EIS was completed by the lead agency, the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") along 

with cooperating federal agencies, the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") and the Federal 

Highway Administration ("FHWA"). ADOT is the local sponsoring agency and the designated 

recipient of study funds. The EIS offers three different alternatives which include "The Orange 

Alternative,” "The Yellow Alternative" and the ‘No Build Alternative.” The Orange and the 

Yellow alternatives offer two different alignments for a rail corridor between Phoenix and 

Tucson, while the No Build Alternative would do nothing to implement a rail alternative. The 

estimated cost for the Orange Alternative is $6.8-$8.4 billion in 2013 dollars. The Yellow 

Alternative would cost between $4.2-$5.1 billion in 2013 dollars. The No Build Alternative 

would include future planned and proposed highway projects, but would not include any rail 

planning. The Phoenix to Tucson rail corridor is being studied to address inter-city travel needs 

where the travel needs are growing but the opportunity to expand highways is limited. 

Phoenix is the only metropolitan area in the United States with a population over 1 million 

without a commuter or regional passenger rail system. 

Safety concerns regarding a potential passenger rail system include a number of issues, 

including vehicular traffic and pedestrian conflicts at highway-rail grade crossings and the 

safety of rail passengers on trains and at stations. An understanding of the potential number 

and type of crossings (at-grade or grade-separated) contributes to an understanding of the 

degree of risk for collisions within each corridor alternative. For example, urban crossings may 

include higher volumes of cross traffic and warrant the cost of grade-separated crossings. 

There is a possibility that nearly 140 public and private at-grade and grade-separated crossings 

would be affected if the Yellow Alternative was chosen and 100 public and private crossings if 

the Orange Alternative was selected. Any modification, alteration or newly constructed public 

crossing would require Commission approval.

Staff's inspection activity would ensure that any crossing improvement project was installed 

and maintained in a manner as safe as possible. All aspects of any new or existing rail system 

would be subject to Staff inspections.

In order to accomplish a multidisciplinary evaluation of alternatives, an Alternative Analysis 

("AA") was undertaken as part of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study ("APRCS") that 

involved conceptual engineering of possible alternative alignments at a level possible for cost 

estimating, scheduling, operational analyses, and community involvement.

Staff believes a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alignment would be more 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -125

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

compatible with existing local plans, property ownership, serve a larger population, and affect 

slightly fewer natural resources, sensitive noise receptors, and archaeological resources than a 

rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative. The potential to affect water resources, 

wildlife corridors, and potential species habitat would be greater in the Orange Corridor 

Alternative. 

Compared to the No Build Alternative, a passenger rail system within either corridor 

alternative offers increased access to transit for protected populations and economic 

generators as well as improved air quality and energy consumption.

A passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative would require nearly double 

the capital cost than the Yellow Corridor Alternative and would be more difficult to 

implement. The operating and maintenance costs would also be higher. The No Build 

Alternative would not incur any of these costs, but it would not meet the identified purpose 

and need for an alternative mode of transportation between Phoenix and Tucson. While the 

right of way ("ROW") costs would be potentially higher for the Yellow Corridor Alternative, the 

lower estimated annual operating costs is forecasted to recover the higher ROW costs within 

the first six years of operation.

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, and potential environmental 

impacts associated with implementing passenger rail within one of the alternative corridors, 

Staff finds that a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered 

more cost efficient and better performing than a rail system within the Orange Corridor 

Alternative, with similar potential impacts to the environment. Staff recommends further 

effort toward realizing commuter rail service connecting Phoenix and Tucson. As between the 

Orange and Yellow route alternatives, Staff believes that the Yellow route appears to present 

several advantages over the Orange route.

Originator: BHL

10/28/15 Richard Couture

It will never, ever pay for itself. We are too attached to our cars. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/28/15 William Terrance

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development. Moreover, 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -126

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

the recently approved US Bicycle Route 90 occupies the same corridor. Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Eduard Zavurov

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/28/15 Ronald E. Shoopman Southern Arizona 

Leadership Council

To whom it may concern: The purpose of this letter is to provide comment on ADOT’s Arizona 

Passenger Rail Corridor Study Draft Tier 1 EIS. The Southern Arizona Leadership Council and it 

more than 130 CEO, business and community leaders are extremely concerned with ADOT’s 

current termination point in Tucson of the passenger rail alternatives being considered. While 

the study identifies the connection from the proposed Tucson hub to the Tucson International 

Airport (TIA) as a route for future consideration, it does not consider this alternative as part of 

the Tier 1 study. We believe that the failure to include this link in the initial routing is a fatal 

error on part of ADOT. The ability for rail passengers to connect between the two major 

airports in the Sun Corridor is a critical link to ensure the success of a passenger rail system 

between the two cities. In particular, it is a critical need to support the continued growth and 

capacity of TIA. If the passenger rail system stops short of TIA, it is a one way supporter of 

Based on public and agency input, ADOT and FRA will include 

a connection to TUS in subsequent studies. As noted 

elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT anticipates that a Tucson-toPhoenix passenger rail system would be funded 

incrementally, and that construction and operations would 

be implemented in phases. The specific phasing of a future 

passenger rail system is not known at this time but would be 

determined as funding is allocated and as part of subsequent

NEPA review. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -127

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

airline service in the region, delivering Tucson area travelers to Phoenix Sky Harbor. This is not 

only a death sentence to TIA, it is not a positive economic driver for the Sun Corridor. Lack of 

inclusion in the initial Tier 1 study, significantly decreases the likelihood of completion of the 

rail line to TIA. Therefore, SALC strongly recommends ADOT extended the route for all Tier 1 

alternatives being considered from the current hub location to the Tucson International 

Airport.

10/29/15 Joyce Kotzamanis

Please provide the. 3 different intended routes. I will provide my information. Great idea...just 

should have been done years ago.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The two alternatives in the Draft Tier 1 EIS, as well as the 

entire EIS, are shown on the ADOT website 

(https://www.azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/Passenger

Rail/).

10/29/15 Theodore Nathan

Has anybody looked at paying the existing rail service to run daily passenger service between 

Phoenix and Tucson? Just a thought.

Currently, no existing passenger rail service runs between 

Phoenix and Tucson. The light rail service in Phoenix, Tempe 

and Mesa cannot operate on the same tracks as freight trains 

by federal safety regulations. Light rail trains also run too 

slowly to be able to effectively serve the longer distances of 

the Phoenix Tucson Corridor.

The preferred alternative follows existing Union Pacific 

Railroad freight lines. Although ADOT has coordinated with 

the Union Pacific Railroad, the proposed passenger rail 

service that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would require

track built to higher standards than those for freight 

movement, and would not share line capacity with Union 

Pacific freight operations.

10/29/15 Tisha Castillo SanTanValley.com

Financially the yellow route is the most economical route. As for a population hub, yellow wins 

again. Please consider the yellow route which will bring a much needed transportation option 

to San Tan Valley residents.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -128

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/29/15 Carol Braly

The yellow route appears to be the one I would favor, and I suspect most business owners 

would choose that one as well.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 wwwonwww@...

Hello, We really need something like this in the San Tan Valley area. Please choose the 

YELLOW route... PLEASE!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Brian

I prefer the yellow alignment for Mesa Airport and San Tan Valley/Queen Creek!!! PLEASE!!! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Jarrod Hamm

I live in Queen Creek and am 100% in favor of the yellow route. Queen Creek hasn't been a 

small town since the '80's, and the people crying that they want to keep their small town 

atmosphere are just in denial of living in a large metropolitan area and its requirements.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Mila Besich-Lira

The Orange alternative carries fewer passengers and costs more than the Yellow Alternative;

though in some areas a combination of the two could be a viable option depending on more 

detailed study.

The Orange Corridor Alternative carries fewer passengers and 

would cost more than a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative; though in some areas a 

combination of the two could be a viable option depending 

on more detailed study at a later time.

10/29/15 Amanda L

I think it would be great to have an orange or yellow line. I have family that lives in the east 

valley and those lines go through there. I have a brother that lives in Chandler and works in 

Florence and it would be great for him to use as an alternative commuter.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Steve Procaccini

This project is long overdue. It really needs to happen, just as it has already happened in so 

many western U.S. states. AZ is once again behind the times. The funding needs to be found or 

created somehow to make this happen asap. ADOT should then look at additional routes, 

ideally Phx to Flagstaff/Williams/Grand Canyon, if possible. It seems that would be very 

popular and useful versus the I-17 congestion. ADOT should also be working with 

USDOT/Amtrak to improve the rail lines west of Phoenix and restore Amtrak passenger rail 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The funding for the project has not been defined, but would

likely come from a variety of sources, both private and public. 

Other lines and other connections could be the subject of 

additional studies at a later time.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -129

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

into downtown Phoenix, specifically historic Union Station. For this study, I do personally 

prefer and agree with the Yellow Route. However, I’d also consider an extra spur line to reach 

downtown Chandler, and another to reach South Tempe and West Chandler, which could help 

serve the Ahwatukee area. I also think the train speeds should increase so as to shorten the 

travel times. I look forward to riding this train in the near future.

10/29/15 Jeremy D. Arp National Association of 

Social Workers, Arizona 

Chapter 

The Arizona Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASWAZ) is writing to 

support the advancement of the Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail. 

Our organization works to support social workers who provide information and resources to 

help individuals, families and communities. As you know, transportation comprises a 

significant portion of most household budgets. Transportation options help individuals and 

families make choices that best fit their budget and their schedule. Passenger rail in the Sun 

Corridor can also provide a link to see family and friends that might not otherwise exist for 

some of our clients – a connection that can be critical for their well-being.

We appreciate the work of ADOT in preparing the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail. We encourage you to continue to move 

forward on this important transportation option while taking into account the impact to the 

environment and sustainability.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Barbara Warren Physicians for Social 

Responsibility, Arizona 

Chapter

For over 50 years, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) has been working to create a 

healthy, just and peaceful world for both the present and future generations. Among other 

issues, PSR in Arizona uses our medical and public health expertise to reverse the trajectory 

towards climate change. 

As you know, transportation in Arizona is one of the biggest threats to climate change. 

Vehicles are a significant contributor to that threat. As the Draft Tier I EIS points out, 

meaningful reductions in pollutants such as NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, CO2, and SO2 can be 

achieved through establishing passenger rail between Tucson-Phoenix. Therefore, PSR 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

During subsequent planning and design, alternative 

technologies may be investigated. The analysis would include 

effects on air quality, greenhouse gases, and climate change.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -130

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

supports and encourages ADOT to continue to move ahead with this rail line.

While we appreciate you quantifying pollution reductions, it is important to also incorporate 

the cleanest fuels available and the least amount of idling possible as part of your calculations 

to provide a more complete picture of potential public health and air quality benefits. As much 

of your fuels that you can electrify is the best approach.

Thank you for your consideration.

10/29/15 James Hewitt

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort. 

10/29/15 Shirley Phan

The ability to have more transportation in Arizona is a great way to connect to the community. 

There are people like me that like to travel all over Arizona to get away from the city such as 

Tucson, Sedona, and Payson. I like enjoying the road trips, but it would be great to have a rail 

to travel on instead of having to pay so much for a road trip. Being able to relax and not drive 

would be great, so I can enjoy the view instead of keeping my eyes on the road.

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, and commuter services in the 

Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. However, this does 

not preclude the option to extend the system in the future.

10/29/15 Keith Lipman

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

There is a clear recognition that a successful passenger rail 

service would depend on the quality of the local 

transportation system near the stations. The Alternatives 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -131

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Analysis developed a detailed community readiness program 

for each potential station location along the route that 

considered transportation options and land uses. The intent 

is to ensure that each community is prepared and can take 

full advantage of the availability of the service.

Transit-oriented development was an important 

consideration for this effort.

10/29/15 Allen Veaner

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Passenger Rail system connections to complementary

transit services were included in high level operational 

assumptions for both the Yellow and Orange corridor 

alternatives. 2) The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study - 

Alternatives Analysis, an Appendix to this EIS document, 

developed a detailed community readiness program for each 

potential station location along the route. The intent is to 

ensure that each community is prepared and can take full 

advantage of the availability of the service. Transit-oriented

development was an important consideration for this effort.

10/29/15 Mary Wellington

Transportation trends in Arizona point to an increase in public transit. Therefore, it is 

important to ensure Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connects with existing and future transit 

services and that passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented development.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Passenger Rail system connections to complementary

transit services were included in high level operational 

assumptions for both the Yellow and Orange corridor 

alternatives. 2) The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study - 

Alternatives Analysis, an Appendix to this EIS document, 

developed a detailed community readiness program for each 

potential station location along the route. The intent is to 

ensure that each community is prepared and can take full 

advantage of the availability of the service. Transit-oriented

development was an important consideration for this effort.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -132

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/29/15 Bonnie A. Allin Tucson Airport 

Authority

Dear Sir or Madame:

On behalf of the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) , thank you for the opportunity to review 

the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ADOT Passenger Rail Study 

and provide comments.

The TAA is generally supportive of the project and the proposed recommendations contained 

within the EIS. However, there is one major item that must be addressed to allow for our full 

support of the project. This item is the location of the southern terminus for the initial phase 

of the passenger rail.

The current EIS shows the initial phase of the rail terminating in downtown Tucson. The TAA 

strongly requests the terminus be located at TIA. Leaving TIA out of the initial phase of the 

project will result in numerous unintended and adverse impacts to the Airport and local 

economy (Note: TIA provides $3.28 economic benefit to the community). These adverse 

impacts include , and are not limited to , the following :

• Enormous competitive disadvantages for TIA; potential loss of customers to other airports 

• Severe reduction in cargo and commercial air service in the region

• Diminished air service development opportunities

• Diminished business growth and development opportunities

• Potential job loss

• Inability to transport the work force to the largest industrial employment area

• Failure to connect to the Sonoran Corridor

The Pima County Economic Development Plan (2015 - 2017) identifies an area immediately 

south of TIA for major near-term development. This area, referred to as the Sonoran Corridor 

and Aerospace and Defense Corridor, is a catalyst for economic growth for the region. The 

integrated master plan includes connecting Highway 1-19 and Highway 1-10 through the 

Sonoran Corridor to enhance transportation links across vast geographic areas and national 

boundaries, and to combine the power of air, rail and surface transportation to create a major 

Southwest logistics center at TIA.

The TAA , Pima County, and City of Tucson have invested millions of dollars to prepare for this 

Public input throughout the development of the AA and Draft 

Tier 1 EIS indicated airport access to be an important 

consideration as a feature of future passenger rail service. 

The corridors analyzed for environmental impacts and other 

factors in the Tier 1 EIS, as established in October 2011 

through the NEPA scoping process, terminated in downtown 

Tucson. While extending passenger rail to TUS was not 

considered in the Tier 1 environmental analysis, the 

Alternatives Analysis of the APRCS included coordination with 

Tucson, South Tucson, PAG and TUS related to airport 

connectivity, and public and stakeholder input were gathered 

regarding how best to connect downtown Tucson to TUS. In 

addition, the conceptual ridership analysis developed for the 

AA included TUS at the southern end. 

Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS from agencies, 

jurisdictions, and the public strongly urged that the study 

corridor terminate at Tucson International Airport (TUS) 

rather than downtown Tucson. Based on this input, ADOT 

and FRA will commit to extending the study area to TUS in 

subsequent studies, which would make TUS the southern 

terminus of a passenger rail system from Tucson to Phoenix.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -133

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

critical economic development opportunity , with the goal to promote and support 

industrial growth to the region and state, attract businesses and increase high-paying job 

growth, and to protect our existing major employment base. The rail terminus near this area is 

essential to make both the rail and the land development successful for the region.

Between the period of 2011 and 2013, the TAA and members of the community brought these 

critical points to the attention of ADOT numerous times and were assured TIA would be the 

southern terminus point in all scenarios. However, the latest report does not reflect or 

incorporate the TAA and our community's comments, concerns and recommendations. The 

TAA respectfully asks that the Final Tier 1 EIS include TIA within the initial phase of work.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at boallin@flytucson.com or Mike Smejkal, Senior Director of Development Services at 

msmejkal@flytucson.com.

Thank you for your attention to our critical concerns. I look forward to working collaboratively 

with ADOT on this project.

10/29/15 Jane L. Morris Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 

Airport Authority

This letter is in response to ADOT's solicitation of comments regarding the Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study Draft Tier 1 EIS. Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (PMGAA) has been 

following ADOT's Passenger Rail Study process with great interest. PMGAA believes that 

passenger rail connectivity to Gateway Airport would play a significant role in the continued 

development and success of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.

Currently, Gateway serves 1.3 million annual passengers with over 2,000 jobs now located at 

the Airport. The current Gateway Airport Master Plan calls for a long-term annual enplaned 

passenger total of 2,200,000, or 4,400,000± annual passengers served. The high range forecast 

identifies that Gateway could handle 5,000,000 annual enplaned passengers, or around 

10,000,000 total passengers annually.

PMGAA encourages airport-rail connectivity that would not require the need for busing 

between rail stations and the airport. PMGAA also welcomes the stated ADOT commitment to 

examine how to better connect the three airports (Phoenix-Sky Harbor, Tucson International, 

and Gateway) as part of the upcoming Tier 2 EIS.

This passenger rail study, along with the ADOT North-South Corridor Study, State Route 24

construction, Valley Metro Southeast Valley Transit System Study, and the Transportation 

Thank you for your comment and participation. Access to the 

three major airports in the corridor is an important element 

of the passenger rail service. As noted, airport access would 

be evaluated in much more detail in the next phase of study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -134

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Master Plans of Gateway's adjacent municipalities, identify the importance of transportation 

planning and coordination in the Gateway vicinity. Providing additional modes of transit and 

connectivity to the Gateway area makes the Airport more attractive for employment and 

passenger growth, and would further solidify Gateway's role as an economic hub in the region.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this study. PMGAA welcomes the 

opportunity to further discuss and work with ADOT, and our regional partners, on this topic.

10/29/15 Michal Goforth Pima Community 

Access Program

Dear ADOT Passenger Rail Study Team,

Pima Community Access Program, also known as "PCAP,” is a not-for-profit organization that 

links low-income, uninsured residents of Pima County with an affordable, comprehensive and 

coordinated network of health care providers.

Many of the consumers we speak with have a hard time making ends meet. Since 

transportation accounts for a large percentage of their expenses, we encourage more public 

transit options. 

Through providing more public transit options, consumers can often avoid needing to own a 

car and the costly monthly payments, operating and maintenance that accompanies owning a 

vehicle. 

Public transportation is beneficial to all of us- whether or not we walk, bike, take a bus to 

work, shop, or visit family and friends. Public transportation helps to grow our economy and 

create good jobs. 

Public transportation in Tucson helps those who need it most. Many individuals who use the 

bus are from working poor families, often without the ability to pay the costs of purchasing, 

operating and maintaining a car. 

PCAP helps individuals and families move toward health and wellness by having health care 

coverage but they must also have transportation to use those services.

Thank you for allowing us to provide input.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/29/15 Ben Missler SkyTram International

SkyTram International, a Portland, Oregon OEM of very high-speed suspended monorail 

systems strongly supports the building a high-speed rail system between Phoenix and Tucson, 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Technology selection was not a part of this Tier 1 EIS and will 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -135

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Arizona and believes the project can be completed over a 2 year construction period and at a 

cost well below $5.5 B versus the $10 B planned for the construction. Unlike many of the highspeed rail systems in use today throughout Europe and Asia, SkyTram is not a traditional highspeed rail system built on a ground-based railroad bed with steel tracks and rail cross ties. It is 

an innovative and futuristic sky way with an up to 250 MPH tram system suspended on 100 

foot high steel towers, with sky cars racing along 50 feet in the air, and utilizing electric 

powered DC motors supported by green technology solar power and wind turbines. SkyTram 

International estimates construction and implementation costs at approximately $15 M (+/- 

10%) per mile over the 113 mile span of Phoenix to Tucson along the divided Interstate 

Highway 10--with the raised "sky way" built between the North and South heading lanes--and 

utilizing the right-of-ways and environmental impact statements already in place. Factoring in 

the total costs, the range would be $1.695 B to $1.495 B. The benefits to Arizonans are 

immense, including construction and operational cost efficiencies, reduced traffic on freeways, 

less air pollution, construction job creation, additional tax revenues, greater commuter 

volume, increased tourism and the public relations value of the first high-speed SkyTram in the 

world. Once in operation and flying high, SkyTram will travel above the ground on steel towers 

set 1000 feet apart and anchored atop concrete bases, with minimal impact on the 

surrounding environment and ground-based transportation. SkyTram will travel at high-speed

along its route, with no rail crossings or stoppages impeding the flow of traffic or commerce 

below. During construction, SkyTram will be built along existing highways and railroad routes 

to minimize the environmental impact and utilize existing rights-of-way. After construction, 

railroads, buildings, highways, off ramps and overpasses already in place will not be effected 

or need to be removed or rerouted. Snow in the high mountains, rivers and flash floods in the 

desert will have no impact on the raised SkyTram system. Although the environmental impact 

of the SkyTram along the Phoenix to Tucson route has not been assessed, a route of mostly 

desert landscape, once in operation, flora and fauna habitats will remain untouched. Animals, 

from the largest desert coyotes and deer to the smallest animals, such as ground squirrels and 

turtles will not have to cross over tracks on the ground and face certain death. SkyTram hubs, 

potentially at Phoenix International Airport in Tempe and downtown Tucson will offer a vast 

array of retail stores, food services, customer parking, rental cars, and transit bus stations. 

SkyTram sky cars offer the ultimate in safety, comfort, and high-speed luxury travel with travel 

times between Phoenix and Tucson slated to be 30 minutes one way. In addition to regular 

passenger service, SkyTram will offer small package freight service in support of express 

services such as FEDEX, UPS and the USPS. And, with solar panels and wind turbines on each 

transit tower, the excess solar and wind energy stored by SkyTram can be sold through gridbe covered in future analyses of the corridor.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -136

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

tie-net metering to local utilities along routes. SkyTram is about the future of travel taking us 

for an exhilarating ride in the sky that makes us feel more like we are on a speeding airplane 

than a speeding railroad track. And with the quiet and comfort that comes with flying! 

CONTACT INFORMATION: Ben Missler, President & CEO skytramamerica@gmail.com 

503.539.6116 skytramamerica@gmail.com

10/30/15 Carl Cerniglia

Please make this happen soon! We would love to travel more often from Tucson to Phoenix;

however we are deterred due to the current congestion on I-10. If a rail option were in place 

we would be frequent travelers. Honestly a line between these two cities should have been 

operational years ago. I would prefer the Yellow option as it would also be a boon for the 

smaller towns along the way.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Cesare DiRienzi

Of the two, the yellow alternative seems much more sensible, as long as the existing 

recreational areas are maintained. Regardless, please do something; we can't move forward 

environmentally or economically without a useful high-speed rail system.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Marian Hall

Yes, This rail system will be a wonderful way to increase the ability for those who live in 

Tucson, and who work in the Phoenix area. Additionally, it will allow those in Phoenix to enjoy 

the amenities in Tucson!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 markfox15@...

A passenger rail will provide another option to commute between the metropolitan areas. Get 

UP to allow passenger service on their existing track. They worked with UTA in Salt Lake City to 

build a commuter rail line, it can work here in the Phx area. A passenger rail could improve air 

quality, produce new economic development along the line and jobs.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Passenger rail services are assumed to run on a new, 

independent track and not share the UP Railroad track to 

avoid conflicts with freight traffic. It would be built to tighter 

tolerances to accommodate a much higher level of 

performance than currently possible with freight trains in the 

U.S. 

10/30/15 Doug Goodman

As a long-time resident of Tucson, I frequently travel by car to Phoenix for business meetings 

and flight connections. Rather than driving, I would much prefer taking a high-speed train from 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Both Sky Harbor and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway would be 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -137

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Tucson to Phoenix and back. The project will take cars off the road, and offer a tremendous 

boost to the Tucson area. I support the project 100%!

served by the project regardless of which alternative is 

selected. TUS would be served by a proposed connection

from downtown Tucson.

10/30/15 Laurie Lines

I think that the light rail going from Phoenix to Tucson would increase our viability as a 

corporate destination area by adding more public transportation. I can see this as a way to 

increase tourism and business between Tucson and Phoenix especially for sports venues. 

Please consider adding this rail route for the Valley.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Marcia Washburn

The yellow path makes the most sense. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Duane C. Olson

Love the idea of rail service between Tucson, Az. and Phoenix, Az. I'm 73 years old, 11 years in 

Tucson. My wife and I would use it! I owned several businesses in Fargo, North Dak. I moved to 

Tucson for baseball spring training, now no more.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Dan Nelson

I would like to see this project completed in a proper and non-corrupted time frame before I 

die.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Janet McFarland

After reading the reports and viewing the line for the proposal, the Tucson/Phoenix route that 

follows existing rail seems the wisest choice. Energy efficiency and emergency routing reports 

will be interesting to see unless I missed them. This is long overdue...and will be welcomed by 

many for years ahead.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Craig

Bullet train only, 2 stations per local per city with light rail feeds to the stations with both 

Phoenix and Tucson airport being one of those stations. Expansion plans should be Tucson to 

San Diego and Phoenix to LA Late Evening cheap fares and freight runs

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Although a higher-speed rail connection between Phoenix 

and Tucson is an important and essential element of this 

Tier 1 EIS, ridership projections, as well public comment and 

input from local agencies, has indicated commuter service in 

the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas to also be a 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -138

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

popular and viable project component. 2) The scope of this 

Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail between Phoenix 

and Tucson, and commuter services in the Phoenix and

Tucson metropolitan areas. However, this does not preclude 

the option to connect the system to California in the future.

10/30/15 dougclise@...

Use the orange route. It is already difficult and time consuming to wait for trains to cross in 

Queen Creek and San Tan Valley now! Don't bring more!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Michael Wailes

As a resident of Tucson, I would aggressively support a rail project between Tucson and 

Phoenix. I and many others in Tucson would frequently utilize the proposed railway to travel 

to PHX airport. I would also use it for trips to Phoenix for the arts and entertainment not 

available in Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Julie Rotary

It would be fantastic to have fast rail service to the airport, the University and downtown 

Phoenix from Tucson. Given the length of time that all the studies and construction will take, it 

is best to plan for the least expensive route. It is also best to avoid habitat destruction in the 

process.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative is considered to be more cost efficient and a 

better performing passenger rail system compared to the 

Orange Corridor Alternative. Details of both options were 

evaluated as part of this Tier 1 EIS.

10/30/15 Stuart Katz

Need this desperately. It needs to run from airport to airport and should extend to Flagstaff as 

well. There should be no stops between airports. The airports have parking and rental vehicles 

for those going elsewhere. Bus, taxi and trolley service should be the venues for travelling 

elsewhere in short distances to and from the airports. There are three large commercial 

airports, TIA, SKY Harbor and Pulliam. No need to have any other stops anywhere along the 

way. If you open that Pandora's box, every town, city and community will want to be on the 

line. It then is no longer the bullet train we need. It becomes the proverbial slow boat to China.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Although a higher-speed rail connection between Phoenix 

and Tucson airports is an important and essential element of 

this Tier 1 EIS, ridership projections, as well public comment 

and input from local agencies, has indicated commuter 

service in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas to also 

be a popular and viable project component. 2) The scope of 

this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail between 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -139

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Phoenix and Tucson, and commuter services in the Phoenix 

and Tucson metropolitan areas. However, this does not 

preclude the option to connect the system to Flagstaff in the 

future.

10/30/15 Bien Flores

I feel that a light rail would be beneficial to the economy, environment, and citizens of Tucson. 

If done correctly, the revenue would not only allow Tucson citizens to travel to Metro Phoenix, 

but it would also generate from others living outside of Tucson to visit. Environmentally, less 

cars would be used between Tucson and Phoenix on I-10. Citizens would benefit and 

appreciate the accessibility the rail brings just by having an easier to access to Phoenix.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 pjazzr@...

Why in the world has it taken this long to propose a rail system? You should also have a 

commuter train that goes to Amtrak in Maricopa. 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, with commuter rail in the 

Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. A route alternative 

connecting to Maricopa was originally included as an option, 

but was eliminated from further consideration based on a 

combination of technical analysis, public comments, and 

input from local agencies. However, that does not preclude a 

connection from Phoenix to Maricopa from being considered 

in the future.

10/30/15 Thomas Snyder

considering that the southern pacific was contracted to haul passengers from mesa, etc to 

phoenix in the 70's when the bridges and crossings were flooded, I think the upsp could be 

contracted to do the same from phoenix area to Tucson at a lot less expense. The extreme cost 

of providing this service between the cities compared to the percentage of riders that will 

actually use it is a cost that is not warranted. The same thing is happening with the light rail. 

The cost to haul a small percentage of the population is too costly. Higher taxes to support 

these services for the benefit of a few are hard for most residents to afford, especially now 

that half the workers are making $30,000/year or less according to the latest studies.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative of this Tier 1 EIS is the ADOT 

recommended option, which follows the existing Union 

Pacific Railroad freight corridor. Although ADOT has 

coordinated with the Union Pacific Railroad, the proposed 

passenger rail service that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS 

would operate on independent track built to higher 

standards than required for freight movement and would not 

share line capacity with Union Pacific freight operations.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -140

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/30/15 Ann Hilliard

I strongly disagree with the proposal to build passenger rail service between and Tucson. I 

think this proposal has totally ignored the geography of these cities. Assuming passengers 

travel between Phoenix and Tucson, where will they go in the cities when they arrive and how 

will they get there? The 2008 (pre-recession) I-10 license plate study showing 11,200 repeat 

trips on the study days appears not to have considered the final destinations of those 

commuters. Both cities sprawl over hundreds of square miles with little public transportation. 

No taxpayer-funded transportation project in the last 20 years has come in anywhere near 

budget. Our state is still reeling from the Great Recession, and there's no way to know how

soon the economy and growth might approach the pre-2008 rates. Arizona does not currently 

have a strong natural resources, industrial, or business base to spur additional growth. I would 

like to see the assumptions behind the growth estimates, and the error bars! Automobiles are 

by far the most flexible and cost-effective way to travel for business and leisure in Arizona, and 

we are long past the time when I-10 needs to be widened. I question whether such widening is 

"impossible in some areas."

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Although the analysis of this Tier 1 EIS focused on a 

passenger rail connection between Phoenix and Tucson, 

commuter connections into the West Valley were considered 

as part of high level operational assumptions. Ridership 

estimates conducted as part of this Tier 1 EIS have indicated 

the potential for over 2,500 daily riders between Phoenix and 

Tucson, and over 15,000 shorter trips in the Phoenix and 

Tucson metropolitan areas. 2) Passenger rail system 

connections to other transit services including the Valley 

Metro Light Rail and Sun Link Streetcar were prioritized as 

part of all alternative routing decisions 3) The assumptions 

that led to this rail corridor alternative are that I-10 would be 

widened to at least 8 lanes (4 in each direction) and another 

North-South Corridor high-capacity transportation facility

would be built. Congestion levels are still expected to 

increase. The train serves as an alternative and a 

complement to I-10 and would be able to make the trip in 

less time without experiencing congestion. Widening I-10 

through the Gila River Indian Community would need to 

address the needs and preferences of the Native American 

community as well as those of the travelers on I-10. That will 

determine the timing of the widening.

10/30/15 morris.natalie.r@...

Please do this! This would be such an increased added value to the Arizona community, but 

also an improvement to our presence as shown throughout the nation. The increase in 

efficiency would service the local communities, but also have an effect on environment and 

economies. A win, win, win for many people. I have lived in communities where trains were an 

integral part of travel from town to town and, now, I often commute from Tucson to Phoenix 

and back. I would definitely be a regular of the express train, particularly if features such as a 

wi-fi and on-site necessities such as a healthy vending amenities were offered. This provides 

incentives for users to actually take the steps to use the train, and know they can get work 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Considerations regarding train amenities, such as Wi-Fi 

access, were not part of this initial Tier 1 EIS. However, such 

amenities are becoming commonplace in other comparable 

systems around the country, and would be evaluated in 

subsequent planning and environmental reports in future 

study phases. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -141

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

done. Thanks for the opportunity and hope to be able to be using it soon!

10/30/15 Catherine S. Baird

I completely support a passenger rail system between Tucson and Phoenix. I frequently have 

to travel to Tucson and have found there are few alternatives to driving my car. I hope the 

proposed passenger rail system receives support and funding in the near future. It would be a 

joy to see construction actually begin.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 John Cook

Stupid Ideas. Why don't you follow the freeway! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Alternative was removed from further 

consideration as part of this Tier 1 EIS because it did not 

attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not 

effectively serve as many key population centers within the 

study corridor, and presented a high degree of potential 

cultural resource impacts. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts associated with implementing passenger rail within 

in the corridor alternatives, a passenger rail system within 

the Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. 

10/30/15 Aaron Jensen

My opinion is that the orange alternative would be the best route, second would be the green 

alternative, and last would be the yellow. I understand the yellow would be the least 

expensive but having a dedicated route through Apache Junction and Mesa would provide a 

large bonus to this area.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Considering the overall estimated costs, projected 

ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts associated with implementing 

passenger rail within in the corridor alternatives, a passenger 

rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is 

considered to be more cost efficient and a better performing 

passenger rail system compared to the other alternatives. 

2) Both the Yellow and Orange Corridor Alternatives would 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -142

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

provide direct passenger rail service to the City of Mesa.

10/30/15 Karen Molique

Would really like to see railway between Tucson and Phoenix. I think it's a win - win for both 

cities. We are behind in transportation than most cities!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Philip Sedgwick

Absolutely! We need this rail system. It would make access to Sky Harbor infinitely easier and 

travel from TUS to other locations more inexpensive. Reduction of traffic on I-10, especially in 

haboob season would be a plus, and I know for a fact I would attend more D'Back games and 

we would visit our child at ASU more often. We have long talked how essential this system 

would be. Every way it can be examined, it comes out on the plus side. Yes, yes, YES!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Leslay Lillywhite

Yes. I have been hoping for this for years. Finally !!! I hope so. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Tim Owens

The Yellow corridor seems like the best choice. I wish you could find an alternative to diesel 

fuel which creates a lot of pollution.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The technology for this service has not been identified. A 

diesel-electric train was used as a conservative means for 

estimating travel times and ridership. In later stages of the 

study, a specific locomotive technology would be part of the 

recommendation.

10/30/15 James P Angel

That the Green Route did not receive the full analysis given to the orange and yellow routes is 

inexcusable given its position as the most popular route among those who responded to your 

2012 solicitation. The justification provided, that the GRIC does not support the route, does 

not hold water. GRIC must simply be adequately compensated for use of the land. Perhaps 

offering GRIC a local station and free or heavily subsidized fares would do the trick. 

Alternatively, you could investigate putting the line on elevated track down the I-10 median. 

Please reconsider some alternatives. Be creative. For the billions you are proposing to spend 

you need to make sure this alignment can support true HSR. The yellow route most certainly 

does not. Two hours for service between Phoenix to Tucson is unacceptably long.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Alternative did include assumptions for a local Gila 

River Indian Community (GRIC) station, complementary 

transit services connecting to the rail system, and adequate 

compensation for use of GRIC easements. However, the 

Green Alternative was removed from further consideration 

as part of this Tier 1 EIS because it did not attract ridership 

comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively serve as 

many key population centers within the study corridor, and 

presented a high degree of potential cultural resource 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -143

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

impacts. Considering the overall estimated costs, projected 

ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts, a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. 

10/30/15 Carolyn Pager

I still really feel the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor should go near Casa Grande, AZ not 

Coolidge as we need to maintain growth in Casa Grande to help Pinal County all the way 

around. To me it would be a more central location for Pinal County. Winter Visitors may 

frequently use to get to locations in Phoenix and Tucson...what a great way to go without 

driving.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Alternative, which directly served Casa Grande, 

was removed from further consideration as part of this Tier 1 

EIS because it did not attract ridership comparable to other 

alternatives, did not effectively serve as many key population 

centers within the study corridor, and presented a high 

degree of potential cultural resource impacts. Considering 

the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, agency and 

public input, and potential environmental impacts, a 

passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative 

is considered to be more cost efficient and a better 

performing passenger rail system compared to the other 

alternatives. 

10/30/15 Mary Brindley

I think this is a fantastic idea that should be executed. I live in Red Rock and would love if there 

would be a pick up/ drop off out here. Next should be a east and west bound highway in 

Tucson.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations were not determined as part of this 

Tier 1 EIS. However, high-level operational assumptions for 

both corridor alternatives included stations both in Eloy and 

northern Marana.

10/30/15 tracyland@...

This project is long overdue. There are not enough good-paying jobs in Tucson to support a 

working middle class.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -144

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/30/15 Loretta Hanson

Please take a look at the train New Mexico put in that runs between Albuquerque and Santa 

Fe. It seems to be working well. Perhaps Arizona can find some answers with procedures that 

have already been tried, both the ones that worked and the ones that didn't.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Comparable systems throughout the United States, including 

the Rail Runner in New Mexico, were referenced during the 

Tier 1 EIS process.

10/30/15 Kurt C Denbaars

I strongly feel that we do need transportation alternatives between Tucson and phoenix, 

especially Tucson to sky harbor airport. I think that people would ride even if only about as fast 

as the freeway, all it takes is one accident and they could shut it down for hours. This would 

put us on par with many other countries that have already done something like this. In favor 

the yellow route, hopefully funding can be found so we can get moving on this- I don't think 

that we have any other choice.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Financing to further develop the proposed system is not 

available at this time, but would be evaluated in future 

phases of the study. 

10/30/15 Mhalltsg@...

I support the Tucson to Phoenix passenger rail - yellow route is the way to go. Much needed 

now and more so in the coming years. Kudos to ADOT for this excellent study and 

presentation.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Ron Edgell

Establish toll booths along East and West bound lanes of I-10 and collect an amount from each 

vehicle to help fund the rail system. Keep Amtrak out of the equation as they are so poorly 

run.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Financing mechanisms to further develop the proposed 

system have not yet been considered, but will be evaluated 

in future phases of the study. However, tolling on public 

highways is currently not enabled under Arizona law. 2) 

Passenger rail system operators, such an Amtrak, have also 

not yet been considered, but would be evaluated as part of a 

subsequent analysis.

10/30/15 Marty Medvec

I believe a high-speed train should be considered from Nogales, Az to Flagstaff, Az. I-10 from 

New Mexico to Tucson and west to California. This would give students and businessman in 

the state an opportunity to do business in the state and attend major Arizona colleges located 

in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff. This would also benefit young adults in the different cities to 

look for work in Phoenix and Tucson, This would also be a boom to major corporations and 

The scope of this Tier 1 EIS was to evaluate passenger rail 

between Phoenix and Tucson, and commuter services in the 

Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. However, this does 

not preclude the option to connect the system in the future 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -145

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

small business to deal with business throughout Arizona and Mexico. The High Speed train 

could run up I-19 to I-10 to I-17 and have several stops at major hubs along I-10 I-19 and I-17. 

Parking areas could be made to accommodate parking and bus service from other parts of the 

state. I would suggest that High Speed trains run east to west on I-40 across northern Arizona 

and I-10 from Phoenix to California along I-10 and I-8 from Casa Grande, Az to California. It's 

time Arizona get into the 21 century and be the first state to become the pioneer in HIgh 

Speed transportation in the United States connecting all parts of Arizona for education, 

commerce and business. Think of all the jobs this would bring to the citizens of Arizona with 

employees to run the High Speed train system, maintaining the system, other modes of 

transportation moving citizens around the state. Tourist can use the High Speed trains to tour 

Arizona using hotels and rental cars and tour buses. This could can bring revenue and tax 

money to Arizona. High Speed Trains could also be constructed from Kingman, Az. to Las 

Vegas, Nv. along route 93, Flagstaff north to Page along route 89, Phoenix to Holbrook along 

route 60, 61,180. This mode of transportation can be a boom to Arizona.

to Nogales, Flagstaff, or points beyond.

10/30/15 Daniel Snyder

My wife and I are firmly in SUPPORT of Arizona installing a Tucson to Phoenix Rail Service. With 

the population growth and the expense of adding more automobile roads, it seems so smart 

and forward thinking for AZ to move forward with rail.

Both my wife and I drive around the state for our work and put too many miles on our 

vehicles.

We would with jump at the chance to use the rail service once it is available.

So would many people I am sure as the success of the Phoenix light rail and the Tucson urban 

streetcar has shown.

This would be an extremely smart and highly beneficial move to take for our great state of 

Arizona.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Terry Benelli LISC Phoenix

LISC Phoenix was formed in 1992 and since its inception, has played an important role in the 

gradual rebirth of a number of blighted neighborhoods throughout metropolitan Phoenix. 

Working in collaboration with grassroots organizations, LISC Phoenix and its corporate, 

foundation and public partners, has created an innovative approach to addressing 

neighborhood problems in distressed, low-income neighborhoods.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study - Alternatives 

Analysis, an Appendix to this EIS document, developed a 

detailed community readiness program for each potential 

station location along the route. The intent is to ensure that 

each community is prepared and can take full advantage of 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -146

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

LISC Phoenix is using transit and Transit Oriented Development as a platform for community 

development in the valley. The strategic initiative, Our Future is on the Line, launched in 2013 

responds to the potential for sustainable and equitable development created by the light rail 

system in our region. It emphasizes the urgency and need to provide development alternatives 

that can reduce transportation costs, improve air quality, promote healthy living, increase our 

economic competitiveness and build livable communities. 

Our organization is frequently asked about opportunities for TOD in other parts of our state, 

most notably Tucson. Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail would offer strong potential for TOD to 

occur along the route and through additional public transportation options developed to 

connect with this line. We were pleased to see your Draft Tier 1 EIS for this line highlights 

many positive advantages of passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson; however, we 

encourage you to more explicitly include TOD as you continue to document its benefits. 

Thank you for your efforts on this important opportunity for our state.

the availability of the service. Transit-oriented development 

was an important consideration for this effort.

10/30/15 Jenise Porter

Fewer young people are getting drivers' licenses and buying automobiles than have done so in 

the past. The trend is for more public transit rather than less. We need a Phoenix-Tucson 

passenger rail. I would use it several times a month.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Kenyon Newman

Yes! This is a great idea to increase commerce! Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Shelly A. Tunis

After reviewing the voluminous data in the “ADOT Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to 

Phoenix – Alternatives Analysis,” it seems clear that the best alternative is the Yellow 

Alternative. 

Survey Results indicate the public prefers the Yellow Alternative 2 to 1 over the Orange 

Alternative. It is easy to understand why. 

The Evaluation establishes that the Yellow Alternative is the best option for:

· Community Acceptance and Accessibility

· Environmental Impacts

· Ease of Implementation

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative is considered to be more cost efficient and a 

better performing passenger rail system compared to the 

other alternatives. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -147

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

· Mobility

· And importantly, Financial Feasibility

Two extremely significant factors rule out the Orange Alternative. It has considerably higher 

costs and lower anticipated ridership. Those two factors alone could doom the success of this 

rail project. 

As a person who utilizes train service when I travel to the East Coast and to European 

countries, I see the greatest potential for the Yellow Alternative.

10/30/15 Robert Torres

I favor the orange or yellow alternate route due to the expectant use of existing rail system, no 

sense in recreating the wheel.

I oppose the green alternate route due to enough congestion in this area and we do not need 

more in our community [GRIC].

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative is the ADOT recommended

alternative, which follows existing Union Pacific Railroad 

freight lines. ADOT has coordinated with the Union Pacific 

Railroad throughout this Tier 1 EIS. The proposed passenger 

rail service that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would operate 

on independent track built to higher standards than required 

for freight movement and would not share line capacity with 

Union Pacific freight operations.

10/30/15 Jayson Matthews Valley of the Sun 

United Way

On behalf of the Valley of the Sun United Way, I am writing to thank you for your efforts to 

document the benefits of and vast support for Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail, and to ask you 

to add us to the list of supporters.

As you are likely aware, Valley of the Sun United Way has served the needs of individuals and 

families in Maricopa County since 1925. We are building caring communities where each 

person has the opportunity to achieve the aspirations we all share: a good education for our 

kids, a safe place to live, food on the table and the security of financial self-sufficiency. 

Because of our wide array of partnerships we effectively create change on two levels: 1) drive 

systemic change that impacts entire communities; and, 2) transform individual lives. We do 

this by bringing together partners from every sector – public, business, non-profit and faithbased organizations – to get things done.

At Valley of the Sun United Way, we have seen how public transportation provides an 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -148

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

important element in connecting the individuals and families that live in our neighborhoods 

and our communities. Through Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail, additional opportunities will 

exist to connect our state’s largest counties and the people that reside and visit them.

Thank you for your work on the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. Please proceed 

with the next steps as soon as possible.

10/30/15 Bret Fanshaw Environment Arizona

On behalf of Environment Arizona, I am writing in support of ADOT moving forward on Tucson 

to Phoenix passenger rail. As ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS documents, there are many 

environmental advantages for this rail line to exist.

Environment Arizona is a citizen-based organization that draws on 30 years of success in 

tackling our state’s and our nation’s top environmental problems. Tucson to Phoenix 

passenger rail would be a tremendous asset to Arizona and our state’s environment.

In particular, we appreciate that the Draft Tier 1 EIS documents the strong potential to reduce 

serious pollutants such as CO2 that contribute to climate change. We also appreciate the 

referenced reductions in VMT that would be a result of Tucson to Phoenix passenger rail and 

the related decrease in air quality and public health problems.

As you acknowledge in the Draft Tier 1 EIS, additional research and incorporation of the best 

environmental protections is important. In particular, our organization urges you to minimize 

threats to water, land and air. We also ask that you include additional measures, such as solar 

technology and use of the cleanest fuels available, to afford even greater environmental 

benefits.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

A reduction in vehicle miles traveled by introducing mass 

transit to a region would be expected to result in a reduction 

in vehicle emissions. During subsequent planning and design, 

alternative technologies may be investigated. The analysis 

would include effects on air quality, greenhouse gases, and 

climate change.

10/30/15 Meghan Hunt

I personally would like to see a passenger rail stop between the San Tan Valley/Queen Creek 

area into the Town of Florence. Florence is a major area for employment for residents in the 

San Tan Valley and Queen Creek areas given that it is the County seat, has multiple state and 

private prisons, jails, Sheriff’s Department, as well as Town employment. For those who live in 

the surrounding areas, eliminating a daily driven commute would alleviate stress on people, 

wear and tear on County and State roads from vehicles, vehicle emissions, congestion, vehicle 

involved accidents, among other related items. A passenger rail would also allow for greater 

travel within the Florence area and bring additional revenue and commerce to a great Town.

As someone who lives in San Tan Valley and commutes to Florence for employment purposes, 

I would encourage a passenger rail stop to come to the Town of Florence with stops in San Tan 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) Considering the overall estimated costs, projected 

ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts, a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. 

2) The Yellow alternative would provide direct service to 

Queen Creek and San Tan Valley.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -149

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Valley/Queen Creek and other outlying areas of Pinal County.

Thank you for your time and good luck on the future endeavors of this project.

10/30/15 Mary Kitchen

My suggestion would be the yellow corridor. It doesn't interfere with any wild life. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Matthew McCormick

To Whom It May Concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Passenger Rail Corridor Study. Pinal Land Holdings is a major stakeholder in 

the region between Coolidge and Eloy and would be directly impacted by both the Yellow and 

Orange Alternatives. That being said, we believe that transportation infrastructure is key to 

the success of the region and State and support the construction of passenger rail along either 

alignment.

One concern we do have is the location of the midway stop on the Intercity Pattern. We 

believe that if the Intercity train stops at the Eloy station it will result in more miles being 

driven by riders to reach that station with either alternative, but especially the Orange 

Alternative. The midway stop will be primarily attracting riders from communities to the north 

and west of Eloy (Casa Grande, Coolidge, Florence, Gila River Indian Community & Maricopa), 

and we believe that the stop would be more efficient in another location. The stop would be 

better served in a location that is closer to the communities north of the Eloy and at an 

intersection with an existing or planned East-West connector that would reduce drive 

distances for riders living in Casa Grande and Maricopa.

We look forward to the final EIS and the continued progress on this project. Please feel free to 

contact us if you would like to discuss our comment further.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific station locations have not been decided. The 

locations shown in maps in the Tier 1 EIS and Alternatives 

Analysis were shown only to indicate a station area as a 

general geographical basis for forecasting ridership. The Eloy 

station, or any other station, would be subject to further 

study and local outreach and coordination before a final site 

is decided upon.

10/30/15 Lawrence Ramsey

I have heard about the proposed rail like between Phoenix and Tucson for decades. Nothing 

has ever come of it, but now it may have a hope. It would be a great improvement to driving 

on I-10 for two hours, even after most of it has been widened.

I agree that the recommended yellow route is the most feasible. It would also be the quickest 

and least costly to implement.

I am a great fan of rail travel. We normally go on a long rail trip each year that typically lasts 18 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT has completed a separate study to reassess the 

functionality of the Wellton Branch of the Union Pacific 

Phoenix Subdivision and the cost to reopen passenger 

services such as Amtrak into Phoenix. Summary statements 

from that study are included in the Arizona State Rail Plan, 

available at http://www.azdot.gov/docs/planning/state-rail-
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -150

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

to 21 days. Some years there are two trips.

The next step is to get Amtrak back into the Phoenix area. The UP track from west of Phoenix, 

through Hyder Valley, to where it rejoins the UP mainline in Yuma County could be rehabbed 

and put into service cheaper than building another route.

I arrived in Tempe in the late 1996 and have lived in the valley since. I remember when I-10 

ended where it met I-17. The US60 had not been started. Going west to LA, CA required a trip 

through Wickenburg. As each of the new routes were constructed, they were overcrowded 

when they opened. Widen, fly-over lanes, express lanes, stacks, loops, and whatever could be 

imagined were employed to make it work (better).

So get the rail going and the public will use it, requiring you to beef that up also.

plan.pdf 

10/30/15 Carolyn Campbell and Jan 

Holder

Sonoran Desert 

Protection and Sky 

Island Alliance

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Passenger Rail Corridor Study Draft 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. We submit these comments on behalf of the Coalition 

for Sonoran Desert Protection and Sky Island Alliance. Founded in 1998 and comprised of 35 

member groups, the Coalition works to achieve the long‐term conservation of biological 

diversity and ecological function of the Sonoran Desert through comprehensive land‐use 

planning in Pima County. Sky Island Alliance protects and restores the biodiversity and natural 

heritage of the Sky Islands through science, education, and advocacy. Sky Island Alliance is also 

a member of the Coalition. Our work is often focused on the preservation of critical wildlife 

linkages, wildlife movement, and habitat connectivity. We support a passenger rail line from 

Tucson to Phoenix if the following issues are taken into account. We request that any adverse 

impact to lands within the Conservation Lands System (CLS) in Pima County are properly 

mitigated based on CLS guidelines. CLS guidelines can be found at: 

https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Development%20Ser

vices/Land%20Planning%20and%20Regulation/Long%20Range%20Planning/CLS%20Regional%

20Plan%20Policy.pdf. The proposed location of the passenger rail in Pima County and into 

Pinal County is along Interstate 10. We have been working with the Arizona Department of 

Transportation on planning for the potential widening of Interstate 10 in Pima County and 

ensuring proper measures are taken to preserve habitat connectivity, such as providing for a 

vegetated wildlife overpass near the Avra Valley Road interchange. While we support following 

existing rail lines, the proposed location bisects two critical wildlife linkages: 1) between the 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Specific alignments and railroad design were not developed 

for this Tier 1 analysis. During subsequent studies, ADOT 

would evaluate impacts to lands within the Conservation 

Lands System and identify appropriate mitigation measures 

in coordination with the federal lead and cooperating 

agencies. At the request of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, the statement appearing on Page 5-149 of the 

Draft Tier 1 EIS has been clarified in the Final Tier 1 EIS to 

read: "a passenger rail system may present opportunities to 

improve wildlife connectivity by siting the corridors to 

minimize habitat and connectivity fragmentation, identifying 

current and potential important wildlife movement areas, 

and designing facilities to provide maximum permeability for 

safe wildlife movement."
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -151

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Tucson and Tortolita Mountains, and 2) between the Picacho Mountains and the Ironwood 

Forest National Monument. Proper mitigation such as wildlife underpasses or bridges should 

be incorporated into the final corridor design to alleviate impacts to these critical wildlife 

linkages.

These linkages were identified in the 2006 Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment under the 

direction of the Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

and a diverse group of NGOs and other stakeholders (including Sky Island Alliance). Detailed 

linkage designs for both of these wildlife linkages were also completed under the Arizona 

Missing Linkages project (www.corridordesign.org/linkages/arizona). Moreover, if the 

passenger rail does not follow existing rail, we request that the rail line be raised to allow for 

the incorporation of wildlife underpasses within these critical wildlife linkages and thus the 

promotion of uninterrupted wildlife movement. Again, we can support a passenger rail from 

Tucson to Phoenix if CLS guidelines are adhered to and if there is proper mitigation for impacts 

to critical wildlife linkages. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not 

hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

10/30/15 Gary Hancock

At this point, given the two alternatives, the Yellow route seems to be preferable. When 

moving forward, I would hope to see an effort made with UP to partner in the region's 

transportation, mitigating costs of ROW use and acquisition.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Yellow Corridor Alternative of this Tier 1 EIS is the ADOT 

recommended alternative, which follows existing Union 

Pacific Railroad freight lines. ADOT has coordinated with the 

Union Pacific Railroad throughout this Tier 1 EIS. The 

proposed passenger rail service that is the subject of this 

Tier 1 EIS would operate on independent track built to higher 

standards than needed for freight movement and would not 

share line capacity with Union Pacific freight operations.

10/30/15 Parshelle Brimhall

I wish to express my ongoing support for the future Passenger Rail system to be integrated 

into the planned North-South Freeway Corridor. Thank you for all ADOT does for our state.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

10/30/15 Ken Ellsworth

Hello - I want to express my support for the future Passenger Rail System to be integrated into 

the planned North-South Freeway Corridor. I believe this will be a vital & extremely beneficial 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -152

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

service for the transportation of individuals in and out of this area. Thank you!!

10/30/15 Diane E. Brown Arizona Public Interest 

Research Group (PIRG) 

Education Fund

The Arizona PIRG Education Fund appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the 

Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study - Tucson to Phoenix, Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement.

For over a decade, the Arizona PIRG Education Fund has followed and provided input on 

policies that would advance Tucson to Phoenix passenger rail. To date, ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS 

provides the most comprehensive, clear and compelling reasons to move forward with Tucson 

to Phoenix passenger rail.

Below please find the Arizona PIRG Education Fund’s core principles for Phoenix to Tucson 

passenger rail as presented to ADOT in October 2012; Arizona PIRG Education Fund top 

research related to Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail; and specific comments related to ADOT’s 

Draft Tier 1 EIS.

Arizona PIRG Education Fund ’s Core Principles for Phoenix to Tucson Passenger Rail

1. Choose a track alignment with the greatest ridership potential to maximize the value 

delivered by the investment. To further improve ridership, the rail service should include 

features prioritized by the public, such as wireless internet, electrical outlets, and express 

routes.

2. Select the right places for stations, where passengers have access to local public transit 

networks to complete their trip and where passenger rail can be a catalyst for transit-oriented 

development.

3. Price passenger rail fares competitively with other modes of transportation in order to make 

it a reasonable transportation option.

4. Plan with future transit options in mind. The entire Sun Corridor region – as the collective 

area between Phoenix and Tucson is known – needs more transportation options. ADOT 

should ensure that a future passenger rail line connects with existing and future transit 

services.

5. Eliminate the bus option from consideration. While bus service is often a good transit 

option, ADOT’s own projections estimate that by 2050, it will take more than five hours to 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The AA and Tier 1 EIS are high-level planning documents, and 

some of the requests stated in PIRG’s Core Principles cannot

be committed to at the conceptual stage. In later phases,

when a specific alignment and rail construction project(s) are

more developed, items such as amenities, station locations, 

train operations, and fare structures will be discussed. 

With regard to PIRG’s request for the Tier 1 EIS to include 

more information on VMT and the cost of congestion for the 

Tucson to Phoenix corridor, the Purpose and Need chapter of 

the Tier 1 EIS cites planning studies and demographic 

forecasts that support the need for additional transportation 

capacity in the region between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Numerous additional data regarding existing and projected 

VMT and the cost of congestion are available both on the 

Internet and in the sources PIRG references in their 

comment; however, it was not the intent of the Tier 1 EIS to 

reference or cite all of those sources. 

Specific alignment, station locations, and locomotive 

technology for a passenger rail system have not been 

determined. Therefore it is not possible until subsequent

environmental studies to quantify the effects of passenger 

rail between Tucson and Phoenix on energy use, air quality, 

and public health. Likewise, the Tier 1 analysis does not 

delineate funding sequences. 

Cost estimates were developed for the AA and reported in 

the Draft Tier 1 EIS for comparison purposes between 

alternatives, and used pricing information current at the time 

the estimates were developed. NEPA does not require cost 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -153

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

travel between Tucson and Phoenix, even if the I-10 is expanded. We need to look beyond 

highways for solutions to our traffic congestion and to focus on rail for the study.

6. Design stations with accessibility in mind. Passenger rail should be easy to use for the 

elderly and people with disabilities. It also should be designed to provide good access for 

bicyclists and pedestrians.

7. Complete the rail study in a timely manner. Since finalizing the rail study is a key step for the 

Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail line, ADOT should articulate clear goals for completing the 

study and the launch of service and regularly measure progress made toward achieving those 

goals.

8. Encourage cooperation among all levels of government. Since this project will impact a 

number of jurisdictions, ADOT should bring together local governments in the Sun Corridor 

and also work collaboratively with the federal government.

9. Invest enough to succeed. Arizona must identify and secure reliable funding in order for 

passenger rail to be successful.

10. Balance private investment with public safeguards. Harnessing private investment can help 

provide resources to build passenger rail. The public must retain control over planning and key 

decisions, and private deals need to operate with their books fully open to the public. 

Wherever possible, the Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail line should be built on publicly 

owned right-of- way to allow the line to be built as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

Arizona PIRG Education Fund Top Research related to Phoenix to Tucson Passenger Rail 

Over the last decade, the Arizona PIRG Education Fund has released over two dozen 

transportation reports (accessible via arizonapirgedfund.org). Below are three reports most 

relevant to advancing Phoenix to Tucson passenger rail:

Arizona's New Frontier (April 2009) makes the case for more and better public transportation 

in Arizona. The report outlines a vision for the future of public transportation in Arizona, 

including passenger rail service between Phoenix and Tucson, making travel easier between 

the cities as they become more and more interdependent.

Connecting Phoenix and Tucson (May 2012) highlights that over the past few decades, 

explosive population growth in Phoenix and Tucson has led the two cities to grow increasingly 

interconnected, socially and economically. The report states that population growth between 

Phoenix and Tucson has also resulted in increasing traffic congestion problems, particularly on 

Interstate 10 and how passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson can help meet the future 

estimates, and the Tier 1 EIS is not sufficiently specific, nor is 

it intended, to provide precise cost information for a future 

hypothetical project with such a large number of variables.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -154

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

transportation needs of the Sun Corridor.

Summer 2015 Update: Bikes, Trains & Less Driving (August 2015) documents how Arizona is 

experiencing a shift in how people travel. Driving miles per person are down especially sharply 

among Millennials, America's largest generation that will increasingly dominate transportation 

trends. Since 2005 Arizonans have been driving fewer miles per person, and they increasingly 

look to public transportation to get around.

Comments on ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS 

As we weigh our principles against ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS, we are particularly pleased that 

ADOT 1) provided strong ridership justification for moving forward with Tucson to Phoenix 

passenger rail; 2) significantly acknowledged the need to plan with future transit options in 

mind; and 3) actively encouraged broad governmental, stakeholder and public support.

1. While the Tables typically provide a quick, easy-to-understand snapshot and comparison of 

the three researched options, the Arizona PIRG Education Fund finds ES-3 and ES-10 contain 

components most pertinent to the need for moving forward with Tucson to Phoenix passenger 

rail: daily rail ridership (consumer demand), VMT and VHT reductions and reductions in 

pollutants such as NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, CO2, and SO2 (which can lead to improved air quality 

and public health).

2. The Arizona PIRG Education Fund often touts the need for providing and connecting 

transportation options at the local, regional and statewide levels. The ADOT Draft Tier 1 EIS 

(page ES-3) highlights how ridership on fixed-route transit systems in Tucson and Phoenix has 

exceeded projected figures. Additionally, it states, “A reliable Tucson-to- Phoenix rail 

connection could provide the missing backbone, close the gap that currently exists for 

potential commuters and intercity travelers, and achieve synergies by creating and delivering a 

robust customer base for a future network of commuter and intercity services.” Inclusion of 

these components point to the success enjoyed thus far and the need to continue to expand 

transportation options.

3. The Arizona PIRG Education Fund has participated in a number of relevant stakeholder and 

community meetings ranging from the Corridor Support Team to open houses in libraries. We 

have demonstrated support of over 100 small businesses and educated members of the 

general public from Tucson to Phoenix and municipalities in between. We have directly 

conversed with mayors and other elected officials about their support for Tucson to Phoenix 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -155

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

passenger rail. A common thread: as noted in the Draft Tier 1 EIS, ADOT has provided a 

number of opportunities for citizens to ask questions, receive answers and provide input – 

whether deep or broad, in person or online, typed or handwritten – and the vast majority of 

citizens have also favorably responded.

While ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS references elements for future study such as station locations 

and accessibility, it would be helpful for ADOT to provide additional data and/or data 

assumptions including funding sooner rather than later. More specifically:

1. The Draft Tier 1 EIS should include more detail and corresponding citations on VMT and the 

cost of congestion for the Sun Corridor as well as for individual areas. The Arizona PIRG 

Education Fund has issued reports documenting transportation trends in our state which since 

2005 point to Arizonans driving fewer miles per person while increasingly using public 

transportation. Too often, we have seen transportation plans fail to recognize these trends.

The Draft Tier 1 EIS should include information specific to Arizona passenger travel and energy 

use (page 5-182 and Table 5-27).

The Draft Tier I EIS should document pollution reductions (and air quality and public health 

benefits) that would be achieved through minimizing idling time and using the cleanest fuels 

available.

2. While we recognize Tier 2 studies and NEPA documentation will help to refine cost 

estimates, the Draft Tier 1 EIS could be clearer in delineating the sequence of funding (8.2) to 

ensure overall success of Tucson to Phoenix passenger rail, increase the potential to connect 

to local transportation options, as well as to guide the efficient use of limited resources. The 

Draft Tier 1 EIS (ES-23) should specifically mention the projected cost of inflation for operating, 

maintenance and capital costs. In addition to cost, we encourage ADOT to more specifically 

incorporate economic benefits, including Transit Oriented Development.

In conclusion, ADOT’s Draft Tier 1 EIS contains essential and favorable documentation to move 

forward with the next steps to making Tucson to Phoenix passenger rail a reality. We urge you 

to proceed.

10/30/15 Sandy Bahr / 

Tiffany Sprague

Sierra Club Grand 

Canyon Chapter

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter and our 

The Green Alternative followed I-10, but it had major 

challenges beyond being located in the same corridor as I-10. 

It did not attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -156

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

more than 35,000 members and supporters in Arizona.

Sierra Club’s mission is “to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice 

and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and 

enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environments.” 

Our members have significant interest in this project as many live in the communities that will 

benefit from the rail or will use this as an alternative mode of transportation. We have long 

advocated for mass transit options, including a passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix.

The Sierra Club Grand Canyon strongly supports a passenger rail line connecting Tucson to 

Phoenix with stations at key points in between. A high-capacity passenger rail line is essential 

for relieving congestion on highways and can have significant environmental benefits, 

including reduced pollution and energy use. We applaud the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) for moving forward with this proposal.

However, in order to minimize environmental impacts while maximizing use, the rail line must 

be properly sited. We are extremely disappointed that ADOT eliminated the Green Alternative, 

which followed the I-10 corridor, from further consideration. The DEIS claims that, although 

this was the shortest route and was well supported during previous comment periods, it has 

“less potential ridership and serves fewer population centers” (DEIS, p. ES-6). We disagree with 

this assessment and are interested in an explanation of how this determination was made. 

This route would provide the most direct link between city centers, where the bulk of the 

population lives. Building a line far from the city centers discourages ridership from the centers 

of the cities as the amount of required travel time substantially increases. We would 

appreciate seeing how the ridership estimates in Table ES-3 compare to those from the Green 

Alternative.

Additionally, one of the primary goals of this rail corridor is to reduce congestion and improve 

safety on I-10. However, by siting this line far from city centers, ridership is likely to be made 

up primarily of people who live near that line, who likely would use alternatives to I-10 to 

travel between the cities. In this case, congestion on I-10 will continue to worsen rather than 

improve.

A key concern with the two alternatives carried forward for analysis is the increased 

environmental impacts. In our previous comments, we recommended that ADOT only evaluate 

previously disturbed and already developed areas for the alignment and not consider 

alignments that would affect currently undisturbed/undeveloped areas. By concentrating in 

areas that are already disturbed, such as along existing freeways or rail lines, damage to 

did not effectively serve as many key population centers 

within the study corridor, and presented a high degree of 

potential cultural resource impacts. Considering the overall 

estimated costs, projected ridership, agency and public input, 

and potential environmental impacts, a passenger rail system 

within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be 

more cost efficient and a better performing passenger rail 

system compared to the other alternatives.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -157

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

environmental resources could be greatly diminished with the added benefit of less 

infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, ADOT instead considered areas that may be developed as 

though they already have been. This will result in the line potentially running through 

previously undisturbed habitat, causing further fragmentation and habitat loss and negatively 

impacting resources.

Related to this, the passenger rail should not be used to promote more development in 

currently undeveloped lands, including the North–South Corridor. Although this area is 

anticipated to be built up in the next several decades, such development is not certain, nor 

should ADOT seek to facilitate it with infrastructure development. Building the rail line through 

this area would not only have irreparable damage to environmental resources but would also 

spur growth in these important lands. The rail line should instead be sited in an area that has 

already been developed, such as the I-10 corridor. As we noted in our previous comments, the 

goal of the passenger rail should be to provide an alternative mode of transportation between 

Phoenix and Tucson and to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, not an impetus for 

further sprawl. The route should be as direct as possible within an existing travel corridor, and 

stops should be limited to existing communities.

The DEIS indicates potentially significant impacts to natural resources from either the Yellow 

or Orange alternatives. For example, nearly 100 parks, more than 1,000 wetland acres, and 3–

4 major waters would be affected (Table ES-5). The DEIS notes that the project will have 

medium to high impacts on habitat and protected species. Discussion of mitigation options for 

these effects is very limited, as the DEIS notes that mitigation measures would be determined 

during a Tier 2 analysis. However, ADOT cannot assume that mitigation options may be 

available to adequately eliminate or reduce these threats and should provide a more detailed 

analysis of potential impacts and mitigation options before an alternative is selected.

With the above factors in mind, we are very concerned about the impacts of the proposed 

alternatives and encourage ADOT to reassess the Green Alternative. The I-10 corridor routes 

would minimize environmental impacts, limit additional habitat fragmentation, and would 

likely be the route that would most encourage people to use the rail rather than their cars.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We look forward to learning 

more.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -158

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/30/15 Angela Massey

I am in support for the future passenger rail system to be integrated into the planned NorthSouth Freeway Corridor.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative is considered to be more cost efficient and a 

better performing passenger rail system compared to the 

other alternatives. 

10/30/15 Stacy Brimhall

I wish to express my ongoing support for the future Passenger Rail system to be integrated 

into the planned North-South Freeway Corridor. Thank you for all ADOT does for our state.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, 

agency and public input, and potential environmental 

impacts, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative is considered to be more cost efficient and a 

better performing passenger rail system compared to the 

other alternatives. 

10/30/15 James Pitts

The concept of commuter line between in Tucson and the Phoenix metro area is one that we 

have often asked, "why don't they build a rail system between here and there - it would save 

so much time and effort?" Often I have to drive from Sierra Vista to Casa Grande, Chandler, or 

Phoenix for a meeting and return the same day. Like it or not, when I was younger, that road 

trip was not too bad. But the reality is, at 54, it's not that easy now. Also, over the last 15 

years, we have seen significant improvements to the I10 corridor; but also a significant 

increase in traffic, aggressive driving (oh the Texas drivers), many collisions. As a former law 

enforcement officer and traffic accident re-constructionist, I tend to take note of the collisions, 

and long traffic delays that they create. But now that I am a business owner, I see these 

accidents more in the light of an economic issue - injuries and property damage directly 

effecting our insurance rates and lost revenue and increase operating expenses every-time an 

employee sits in traffic, just to name two. And then there is the lost productivity of just driving 

for two plus hours one way. I can get a lot of work done in four hours while "someone else 

drives.” Overall, I think New Mexico made an excellent decision to invest in the New Mexico 

Rail Runner Express. If New Mexico can do it - so can we!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Comparable systems throughout the United States, including 

the Rail Runner in New Mexico, were referenced during the 

Tier 1 EIS process.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -159

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

10/30/15 Tristan Platt

I applaud ADOT’s effort to continually improve Arizona’s transportation infrastructure. 

Building a rail line between Tucson and Phoenix would provide much needed relief to 

congested roadway. Railways have had much success in Europe and Eastern US cities. I have 

used these rail systems before and can attest to their success. 

Between the Yellow and Orange Alternatives, the Yellow is the better option. The reason for 

this is the Yellow Alternative’s lesser Environmental Impact, Easier projected implementation, 

Community preference, as well as Cost Efficiency over the Orange rout. 

Therefore I encourage ADOT to choose the Yellow Alternative. 

I thank you for your time and the chance to comment on this matter.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

(no date) John Jones

The DEIS assumes that for the Yellow Alternative, UPRR will convey an easement on the 

Phoenix Subdivision to ADOT for the purpose of constructing passenger railroad facilities. This 

issue had been characterized as a fatal flaw in previous analysis by your consultant. At that 

time your consultants also stated the Green alternative had a fatal flaw in that it would require 

GRIC approval. So what changed? Has UPRR agreed to permit passenger train operation within 

the Phoenix Subdivision ROW? 

Table 7-1 on page 7-2 and 7-3 compares the community and environmental criteria for the 

final alternatives. 

The two route alternatives are equally compatible with local plans. The City of Mesa 2040 

Transportation Plan was adopted 11/17/ 2014 and includes both the Yellow and Orange 

alternatives for passenger rail routes. The Superstition Vistas Plan was adopted on 12/11/2011 

as an amendment to the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan and specifically includes a 

passenger rail corridor for the Orange alignment. 

The two route alternatives would have a same impact on water resources, wildlife corridors, 

and species habitat. The summary on page 7-3 states, "The potential to affect water resources, 

wildlife corridors and potential species habitat would be greater within the Orange Corridor 

Alternative." That blanket statement bears close examination, as do the numbers cited in the 

comparison. An examination of the Biological Resources Report completed by Arizona Fish and 

Game has some misstatements that need to be corrected. Significant impacts were reported in 

segments 3 and 4 of the Orange Alternative.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

1) During the development of the AA, ongoing discussions 

with UPRR indicated that use of the Phoenix Subdivision ROW 

need not be eliminated from consideration. 

2) As part of interagency coordination, AGFD undertook an

independent study of the Yellow and Orange corridor 

alternatives. Further analysis of the impacts to water, wildlife 

corridors, and special status species would be completed for 

the subsequent project-specific environmental analysis. 3) 

Use of the I-10 frontage road between Tucson and Marana, 

which is within ADOT ROW, was assumed for high-level cost 

estimating purposes. However, no specific alignment was 

considered for environmental effects in the Tier 1 EIS, which 

analyzed mile-wide corridor alternatives. Specific 

environmental impacts, including traffic and transportation, 

will be examined in detail in subsequent planning and 

environmental studies.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -160

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

Orange segment 3 from AZ 287 to Hunt Hwy has 5 statements. Statement 3 and 5 are 

incorrect and appear to be the result of hasty cut and paste editing. Statement 1, sentence 2 is 

partially correct but would not isolate the San Tan Mountains because it is not adjacent to 

them. This segment is included as an alternative in the recommended Yellow route. 

Orange segment 4 between Hunt Hwy and Rt 202 at Gateway has 5 statements. 

The first sentence of Statement 1 is questionable due to the fact that this proposed one mile 

wide route parallels and includes, an electric transmission line, the Copper Basin RR and the 

Central Arizona Project Canal. The route appears purposefully chosen to be located adjacent to 

these industrial structures. It is hard to draw the conclusion that this route is a NEW alignment 

and there would be higher level of habitat impact and fragmentation than already exists. 

Sentence 2 of Statement 1 should state the obvious that the CAP canal already bisects habitat 

and effectively isolates the San Tan Mountains. 

Sentence 4 of Statement 1 confirms the CAP canal as a barrier to wildlife crossing it and 

proposes mitigation opportunities to create/ enhance crossings over the CAP canal that

connect wildlife with the Valley North and East of the San Tan Mountains habitat block.

The DEIS already proposes Orange Segment 3 and Orange Segment 7 are viable alternatives to 

the recommended Yellow alternative so there is no need to comment further.

The two alternative have the same Community and Environmental impacts.

There can be no meaningful discussion of Financial Feasibility unless the "Elephant in the 

Room,” UPRR states unequivocally that they will provide ADOT with the necessary legal access 

to the Phoenix Subdivision to construct and operate a passenger railroad. 

Page 6-2 states, “Construction would use the existing I-10 westbound frontage road from 

Grant Rd to Eloy." That statement presupposes that the passenger railroad can only be located 

to the west of the UPRR track. The DEIS does not address either using State Land on the east 

side of the UPRR mainline or how the removal of the westbound frontage road would affect 

the operation the I-10 on and off ramps at Grant, Miracle Mile, Prince Rd etc.

Stephen M. Brittle Don’t Waste Arizona, 

Inc.

Don't Waste Arizona, Inc. (DWAZ) is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the 

protection and preservation of the environment in Arizona. DWAZ is especially concerned 

about environmental justice, transportation and hazardous materials issues, and related air 

Thank you for your comments. The proposed passenger rail 

service that is the subject of this Tier 1 EIS would operate on 

independent track built to higher standards than required for 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -161

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

pollution issues. DWAZ is headquartered at 2934 West Northview Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85051, 

and may be reached at (602) 881-3305. DWAZ has members in the affected area.

DWAZ offers the following comments:

The DEIS is quite deficient and inadequate; ADOT seems incompetent.

It doesn't even examine the alternative of a separate rail line for the passenger train, which 

also means a high-speed rail line is not examined, despite it being talked about for many years 

in Arizona, even at the state legislature. This is not looking forward to the future. High-speed

rail is available in many foreign countries, but with backwards looking ADOT, this is not even 

considered. Yet, the high-speed rail for passengers has been a topic of discussion for decades, 

even at the state legislature. And the restrictions on times that the rail could be used for 

passenger trains will likely mean it wouldn't be economically feasible. Of course, none of this is 

adequately analyzed or examined.

What is mentioned is just this:

"ADOT has had ongoing discussions with UP, the freight operator in the corridor, related to the 

proposed Yellow Alternative. Based on the information obtained from UP and analysis of the 

alternative, the implementation of passenger rail within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is not 

expected to result in a change in the number of freight trains currently operating in the Tucson

to Phoenix corridor, although some freight train scheduling modifications would be required to 

prevent conflicts with passenger service. Upgrades to the existing UP track were assumed as 

part of this alternative in addition to projects to accommodate passenger rail operations. 

These potential improvements include: 

• New at-grade single track

• New at-grade siding tracks

• New siding turnouts, where needed

• New roadway-rail grade crossings 

• Reconfiguration of UP track where needed

• Centralized train control signal systems

• Positive train control systems where required by FRA regulations.

These projects would allow continued service to freight customers and mitigate potential 

restrictions to freight movements."

freight movement and would not share line capacity with 

Union Pacific freight operations. Though all details have not 

been developed for this early Tier 1 EIS, most if not all of the 

features you mention are expected to be part of any final 

plan for the passenger rail service in the Phoenix-Tucson 

Corridor.

Many of the features mentioned in the comment refer to 

items either not yet defined sufficiently or not applicable to 

the Tier 1 EIS. Further, because there is no specific alignment 

identified, many of the impacts discussed cannot yet be fully 

evaluated. These would be assessed during a subsequent

project-specific environmental review, with substantially 

more detail included. Many of the specific points raised in 

your comments would be a good basis for the detailed 

studies in the next phase.

This Tier 1 EIS was developed in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act with guidance from the Council on 

Environmental Quality.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -162

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

There is also this missive:

"In the community of Picacho, both sides of the I-10 corridor are predominantly undeveloped, 

with inclusions of agricultural lands near the I-10 and SR 87 interchange. As the study corridor 

travels through the narrow Picacho Pass, the west side encroaches on Picacho Peak State Park. 

Small amounts of open space are also designated west of I-10 just north of the city boundary."

There is no mention of the proposed Union Pacific rail yard, much less its effects and potential 

impacts. The proposed Union Pacific rail yard means much more freight rail traffic, and would 

significantly affect rail traffic and schedules, availability of the rail for passenger service, have 

environmental impacts, and possibly rule out passenger rail on that rail line. Yet there is no 

mention or consideration of this. The cumulative impacts must be disclosed per NEPA 

regulations.

There is also no real consideration of contingencies or worst case scenarios, or the mitigation 

measures required by NEPA, just this: 

"With additional trains operating within either corridor alternative, the possibility of train 

collisions is increased as a result of increased activity between freight and passenger services 

and a higher number of trains at grade crossings; however, the signaling system, such as 

positive train control as required by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008 (PRIIA), would be designed to mitigate this risk."

This is grossly inadequate and gross incompetence.

I have an extensive background in emergency planning and response, serving for ten years on 

the Maricopa County Local Emergency Planning Committee. I have also been involved with 

significant enforcement of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA). The emergency plan promulgated and updated under the planning requirements of 

EPCRA also has to consider transportation-related incidents and chemical releases, as well as 

nuclear waste issues. In the course of that service, I attended many training sessions around 

the country regarding all aspects of the subject. I also worked as a private contractor as an 

investigator for chemical disasters, which including the Graniteville, SC chlorine rail disaster 

and a rail collision disaster in Texarkana.

The I-10, adjacent to the only proposed rail route, is a main route of transportation and 

commerce, and in that subject area, an event forcing closure of the freeway would have an 

economic impact of enormous proportions, and could have impacts on the rail line used by 

freight and potentially the passenger line.. Such an incident, if it lasted any appreciable length 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -163

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

of time, would cause billions in economic losses and liabilities for lost commerce, and would 

likely be sufficient to destroy the economy of Arizona. That is a glaring and illegal deficiency.

Looking at the maps provided in the recent Pinal County transportation study, it is evident that 

the transportation corridor being examined has the I-10, which ostensibly will be eventually 

widened to eight lanes from the current six, a major railroad freight line, which the study 

purports, would be the likely route of the Phoenix-Tucson rail line, and the CAP canal. The 

addition of a Union Pacific rail yard complicates matters in this area with increased rail car 

congestion, but it is not even mentioned or considered in the DEIS. Oddly, ADOT gave Pinal 

County a grant for a transportation study to examine future transportation developments in 

the same corridor, and that Pinal study shows the proposed Union Pacific rail yard. The 

operations of the proposed Union Pacific rail yard would seriously and completely change 

everything the DEIS purports to study. This is an example of wasting taxpayer dollars through 

gross incompetence. 

There are already hazardous materials risks in this area from the existing traffic on the road as 

well as the freight line. When we examine the circumstances surrounding the Graniteville, SC, 

chlorine rail disaster, we find that a rail collision cracked open a 90-ton rail car of chlorine. The 

chlorine rail car released chlorine over a period of days, and parts of the local area were 

evacuated for about a week. If the tanker has released all of its contents in a catastrophic 

release, the endpoint of dangerous levels of chlorine would have been at least 12 miles 

downwind. An incident like this involving chlorine would quickly kill many or all of the people 

working at the rail yard as well as people in traffic on the highway and the proposed passenger 

rail line. And having the rail yard in this specific area easily multiplies the probability of such an 

incident by many, many times. But since the Deficient DEIS never even examines this, there is 

no study or mitigation that can be examined, a fatal flaw. Again, there needs to be an 

examination of the proposed effects and impacts of the proposed Union Pacific rail yard and 

contingency planning to allow the rapid evacuation and protection of people who would be at 

the rail yard, as well as along the I-10 and on a passenger train. 

Along the same lines, there is a large amount of LPG and crude oil on the railways now due to

increased production in the US. Because of its location nationally between major 

petrochemical producing and processing areas of the Gulf Coast and major chemical 

processing and using areas on the West Coast, any new Arizona rail yard might expect to see a 

good share of petrochemical hazmat cargoes traveling in all directions. Commodities shipped 

through the proposed UP yard are very likely to include many of the standard and commonly 

shipped most dangerous rail cargoes such as chlorine, ammonia, LPG, explosives, etc. known 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -164

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

to be capable of extensive offsite fire, explosion and toxic gas impacts. 

The proposed UP rail yard may well be a national magnet for transcontinental hazardous 

cargoes to be routed through its presumably more efficient switching facilities. The UP railroad 

is free to make all its regional and national hazmat routing decisions secretly, with no level of 

government having authority to direct traffic effectively to lower-risk routes.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Rail accident investigation reports include rich 

evidence of multiple causes of serious rail accidents, such as human factors [fatigue, 

carelessness, disregard of regulations, etc], equipment failures, gaps in regulations and 

railroad operating rules, etc. Many hazmat accidents including collisions and derailments have 

occurred in rail yards or other non-mainline locations. Although most rail yard accidents on 

average are at slower speeds and result in smaller releases than mainline derailments, some 

releases are quite significant. In Phoenix, rail cars moving at less than ten mph have tipped 

over and spilled cargoes.

NTSB investigations have often revealed systemic railroad operations problems, often 

specifically switching-related problems, as contributing probable causes of the significant 

releases. NTSB makes frequent strong recommendations on needed improvements in safety to 

government agencies and railroads, which recommendations often lead to significant 

operating rule or federal regulation changes, but are also often not complied with. 

Railroads, in litigation of these issues, have asserted that they have to carry the cargoes being 

shipped and cannot refuse them, even chlorine gas. There are three facilities in Arizona that 

receive 90-ton rail cars of chlorine; this chlorine rail car rail traffic is a reality. Besides chlorine 

and other hazardous substances, there is also no reason to not assume that railroads and 

highways will have high and low-level nuclear waste shipments.

Further, despite any assurances from rail corporations, promises to not bring certain cargoes 

into areas controlled by rail corporations are not locally enforceable due to the Interstate 

Commerce Clause. For these reasons, these empty assurances are suspect. 

There is also an issue regarding the transportation of low-level and high-level nuclear waste. 

The Nevada Department of Transportation has extensive studies detailing the risks and 

hazards of this, as does the US Department of Energy (DOE). In a serious truck or train wreck or 

terrorist attack, the casks could be breached, releasing high level radiation into the 

surrounding area. Estimates vary as to the number of people that would die from radiation 

exposure in a severe accident. The DOE's worst case scenario predicts 48 radiation-induced 

deaths in a terrorist incident and 5 radiation-related deaths in a serious truck accident. First 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -165

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

responders, local police, fire and hazardous materials response teams could easily be exposed 

to lethal doses of radiation. Billions of dollars and many years could be required to clean up 

the area. Transportation routes, including major interstates and train lines could be closed for 

months, or even years. So there needs to be a contingency plan for that scenario, as there is 

also no reason to not assume that railroads and highways will have high and low-level nuclear 

waste shipments.

And now there is the issue of terrorism. We must realize that what is proposed creates a very 

inviting terrorist target. Picacho Peak is a readily accessible location (that cannot be secured) 

from which to look down and launch an attack. The information about the size, distinct shape, 

and design of railcars of specific hazardous materials is available; terrorists could monitor rail 

traffic patterns and pick and choose the most devastating targets, including a passenger train. 

There is already a history of unexplained train derailments in Arizona that were caused by 

deliberate human actions. It is ill advised to make this scenario more easy for domestic or 

foreign-based terrorists.

After such a successful terrorist attack, the only interstate highway commerce route is closed, 

the main rail line used for freight is closed, the Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail line is closed, the 

drinking and irrigation water (CAP canal) is compromised, potentially forever, as well as Pinal 

County water recharge projects, a rail yard is contaminated and/or inaccessible, and for a 

minimal effort and cost on the part of terrorists, billions and billions of dollars of liability are 

incurred, and the terrorists win. 

It is appalling that this entire proposal has advanced in this light with no consideration of 

federal laws, because there are actual laws and directives regarding this. The failure to 

consider this in transportation planning as proposed is a glaring error, and likely a form of 

negligence actionable in the federal courts. 

The U.S. Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) is a national program to ensure the security of 

vulnerable and interconnected infrastructures of the US. In May 1998, President Clinton issued 

Presidential Directive PDD-63 on the subject of Critical Infrastructure Protection. This 

recognized certain parts of the national infrastructure as critical to the national and economic 

security of the United States and the well-being of its citizenry, and required steps to be taken 

to protect it.

This was updated on December 17, 2003, by President Bush through Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive HSPD-7 for Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and 

Protection The directive describes the United States has having some critical infrastructure 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -166

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

that is "so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and 

assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public 

health or safety. 

All of the planning that will be conducted as part of this federal transportation planning grant 

needs to take the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001 [See 42 U.S. Code § 5195c - 

Critical infrastructures] into account and fully consider and implement its policies. Until and 

unless the transportation planning being conducted by ADOT considers all these issues, it is 

deficient and likely a violation of federal law and its funding grants. 

Thank you for your consideration of this critical matter. The citizens and taxpayers of Arizona 

deserve a real environmental impact study, not incompetence.

Mike Salisbury Southwest Energy 

Efficiency Project

The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project is a public advocacy organization promoting energy 

efficiency in the Southwest states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and 

Wyoming.

SWEEP is very supportive of the development of rail service for commuters and intercity 

travelers between two of Arizona’s major metropolitan areas. As noted in the draft EIS, this 

region is expected to experience substantial growth in future years and the addition of a rail 

line between Tucson and Phoenix will play an important role in ensuring that the growth in 

travel demand can be met sustainably.

The draft EIS demonstrates that a passenger rail system would provide numerous benefits to 

the region including but not limited to reduced vehicle travel, criteria pollutants and CO2 

emissions. The strong justifications for this rail service detailed in the draft EIS make a 

compelling case for the importance of transit service in the Sun Corridor.

The development of this rail link is especially important at this time as recent travel trends in 

Arizona show that people are driving less and making greater use of transit. Recent research 

by SWEEP found that over the last decade the average person in Arizona is driving 1,000 miles 

less per year and that overall driving has fallen by 2 billion miles since 2006. Over that same 

time period, transit use in Phoenix and Tucson has increased by 32% and 26% respectively.

The addition of a rail link between Tucson and Phoenix will be important in meeting the rising 

demand for transit in the region and providing residents with alternatives to driving. It will also 

provide travelers a congestion free mode for travel between Tucson and Phoenix. As driving 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -167

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Response

travel times between Tucson and Phoenix become longer over time, it will be even more 

critical to offer a reliable and fast option along the corridor.

The Preferred Alternative identified in the draft EIS appears to be a good choice among the 

alternatives presented, offerings access to a greater number of residents and employees at 

lower cost.

One concern is that the identified preferred alternative offers less connectivity to pedestrian, 

bike and other transit services than the other corridor option. As part of further evaluations 

we would like to see an examination of how potential station locations along the preferred 

alternative can maximize connectivity.

As part of a Tier 2 process we also look forward to an examination of possible sources of 

funding for the rail corridor.

Thank you for considering our comments.

B. Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS Submitted in Writing

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/16/2015 (Anonymous)

The Yellow Corridor Alternative seems to be the most viable option for all of those involved. 

Better for the communities, environment, and on taxpayers.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

(Anonymous)

I support passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson and believe that the yellow alternative 

is best. Let's get it built!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 (Anonymous)

This project is of great importance and has a lot of support among the Tucson population (at 

least anecdotally). I agree with the last speaker, that the train must be electrified with solar 

being used in every possible place (signs, lights, etc. along tracks). Furthermore, the train 

must connect the Phoenix and Tucson airports as well as communities along the route. I 

strongly believe that this train is the best option, as opposed to the proposed I-11, for 

increasing connectivity and reducing auto travel in southern Arizona.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Electrification (solar or otherwise) would require a substantial 

additional investment. That evaluation would be addressed 

before a final project-level environmental document is 

completed. Access to major airports in the corridor is an 

important element of the passenger rail service and would be 

evaluated in much more detail in the next phase of study. The 

Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study is being undertaken 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -168

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

independently of the I-11 Tier 1 EIS.

(Anonymous)

The Passenger Rail "Yellow" Corridor would provide the best means of transportation from 

Tucson to Phoenix. 

PURPOSE: The idea of the train has seemed to be to provide an alternative means of 

transportation for business commuters, visitors, students, and retirees from Tucson to 

Phoenix (and vice versa). Several elements of the train have been addressed such as safety 

such as licensed train engineers, train stop safety measures as a few examples. Getting more 

cars off of I-10 might make I-10 safer for drivers not taking the train. 

SAFETY: For example, during dust storms the fewer drivers on the road might mean less 

accidents [whereas] the more cars on the road during a dust storm might [mean] more 

accidents. Therefore, passengers taking the train might be safer on the train during these 

dust storms.

SECURITY: Security on the train is important. I would like to see the same or similar security 

on the Tucson train as on the Tucson Trolley--not overdone. It should be a relaxed, but secure 

ride. 

CONVENIENCE: The train should go from the airports as a start because you can park. The 

train should connect both airports. It should run from Tucson International Airport to the 

Phoenix Airport. There should be shuttles to the Phoenix downtown train for downtown 

workers. That the train goes up past the Phoenix metro area is nice for visitors. This allows 

commuters to, say, Goodyear to live in Tucson and to work in the Phoenix area. 

STATIONS: The 12 stations along the way should be equipped with restrooms, phones, 

lighting, comfortable chairs, shading, snack machines, and water. The double closing gates or 

barriers solution at train crossings sounds good. Could a bridge be built at these crossings as 

well, which would allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers to cross safely? The faster train 

might be better in delivery time. A diesel train might pollute more and is less safe.

Thank you for your comments.

9/16/15 Bob and Brenda Armstrong

To ADOT - I was speaking with our mayor, Jon Thompson, regarding passenger rail. I am 

sending this to you to support the yellow route through Coolidge. It is the shortest and least 

expensive route from Tucson to Phoenix and we support it.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Bob Urdiales
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -169

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

[missing page(s)]...The train stopped right at the entrance to Camp Randall Stadium, and 

Marquette (Milwaukee) students rushed across the street and into the stadium for the 

annual Wisconsin vs. Marquette football game (65 years ago). BE CERTAIN that you allow for 

a special train on Saturdays when the [U. of] Arizona vs. ASU football games take place!!!

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/30/15 Donald and Emilia Falk

Dear ADOT, We are writing to express our strong support for the proposed passenger rail line 

between Tucson and Phoenix. This project has been in planning stages for a long time, and 

now it is time to move forward as quickly as possible and get it built. Many Arizona 

communities are now leaning toward supporting high-speed rail. As the DEIS notes, there are 

many reasons why high-speed rail is needed urgently in Arizona. These include traffic 

congestion on highways, increasing numbers of accidents leading to injuries and fatalities, 

noise and air pollution, high costs of highway maintenance, and increasing accidents due to 

driver fatigue or aggressive driving. But the most compelling reason is that we simply must 

shift away from a petroleum economy as quickly as possible, to avert the worst effects of 

climate change. Transportation accounts for 31% of all carbon emissions in the United States. 

This is a disaster in the making, and every measure that can be taken to reduce emissions 

must be initiated. Instead of building more highways, which promote more automobile use 

and fuel consumption, we need to find ways to get cars off the road. Rail travel is more 

relaxing for passengers, allowing free time, rest, and movement that is not possible in an 

automobile. One of the reasons that high-speed rail is being adopted in every advanced 

economy in the world is this combination of fuel efficiency, reduced carbon pollution, and 

quality of travel. The United States, unfortunately, lags far behind other nations in building 

rail infrastructure, leaving us vulnerable to the economic impacts of increased oil prices and 

geopolitical instability. It is well established that there are major economic benefits to 

building a high-speed rail connection between Tucson and Phoenix. Both metropolitan areas, 

as well as the nearby suburban towns, will benefit from the increased ease of visiting the 

other city for business, entertainment, travel options, and tourism. The DEIS documents 

these benefits clearly. We are copying this letter to the Governor and our Congressional 

delegation. We expect all elected officials to line up to support the Tucson-Phoenix highspeed rail proposal and make it a reality as soon as possible. It's time for action now. Please 

let us know where you stand.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

ADOT and FRA have undertaken this Passenger Rail Corridor 

Study and Tier 1 EIS as a first step in implementing passenger 

rail service between Tucson and Phoenix.

David Bachman-Williams

YES! Arizona needs high quality mass transportation. We need it in our cities (e.g., Phoenix Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -170

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

area light rail) and between cities. Either option works for me, orange or yellow. Please divert 

the money from more freeways to mass transportation.

While funding has not yet been defined and it will take 

support from multiple sources to generate the needed funds, 

ADOT is not able to use highway funds allocated by the 

Federal Highway Administration for a passenger rail system.

Dan Miller

I would like to encourage this project to move forward! We need a better way to travel 

between major urban centers than interstate highways. Thank you for doing this analysis and 

I hope that next steps will be taken to fund this project and build it in a well thought out 

manner.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

Geza Kmetty

1). I recommend an independent Value Engineering study at this stage to improve value and 

public acceptance. 2). The future connectivity of the trains/tracks with the California High 

Speed Rail System is very important. The future connection to become part of an Interstate 

High Speed Train system is very likely. 3). Local access, train stations, how people will get to 

the train stations, and how they proceed to destinations @ 110 degree temperatures? We 

need an integrated planning of trains, trolleys (light rails), buses, etc. 4). Consider nonpolluting (solar, electric) trains.

1. Cost estimates developed for the Arizona Passenger Rail 

Study were based on relatively conservative assumptions 

about a future system. The engineering detail necessary to 

undertake a Value Engineering study would not be available 

until a subsequent phase of study. 2. In conformance with the 

State Rail Plan, the Tucson to Phoenix Passenger Rail Corridor 

Study is being undertaken as a first stage in the State’s vision 

of expanding passenger rail service beyond Arizona’s borders. 

Regarding destinations outside of the Tucson to Phoenix 

corridor, the Federal Railroad Administration looked, at a very 

high level, at the possibilities of a high-speed rail service 

linking the main Arizona metro areas with destinations in 

California and Nevada in their Southwest Multi-State Rail 

Planning Study, available at 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17109. 

3. The Alternatives Analysis developed a detailed community 

readiness program for each potential station location along 

the route that considered transportation options and land 

uses. The intent is to ensure that each community is prepared 

and can take full advantage of the availability of the service. 

Transit-oriented development was an important consideration 

for this effort.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -171

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

4) The technology for this service has not been identified. A 

diesel-electric train was used as a conservative means for 

estimating travel times and ridership. Electrification (solar or 

otherwise) would require a substantial additional investment. 

That evaluation would be addressed before a final, projectlevel environmental document is completed.

Jim Trockl

Comment in passing. In Arizona, drivers expect that "the other drivers" will use the rail. Then 

the freeway will be less crowded for them. Good plan=good idea. Good study. It is 

unfortunate that Amtrak doesn't publically support this as a feeder for their trains.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 Johnna Thompson

Population and growth patterns make different transportation options necessary. The yellow 

route through Coolidge, Arizona is the best and only true option. We need to get ahead of 

growth and the yellow route is the shortest and least expensive route between Phoenix and 

Tucson. I would also mention the City of Coolidge along with ADOT has a public transit bus 

facility which enables Coolidge to service central Pinal County. Coolidge is the center of Pinal 

County, sits in the growth pattern and has already demonstrated the know-how to run a 

public transit system. The yellow route is the best route for everyone.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 Jon Thompson

Thank you for coming to Central Arizona College on September 17, 2015. It was an 

informative presentation. As the mayor of Coolidge, AZ I support the "yellow route" which 

runs through Coolidge. The yellow route is the shortest route between the two large metro 

areas (Phoenix and Tucson) and is the least expensive route to complete. I would mention 

Coolidge has a big belief in public transit as our bus service is the only public transit in Pinal 

County. I would point out when we asked Casa Grande to contribute and support our "bus 

system" they refused. The current bus service will work in conjunction with Rail in moving 

people. The yellow route also runs adjacent to the proposed North-South freeway. Passenger 

rail is important to "All" of AZ. San Tan Valley is still growing and Coolidge has inexpensive 

land. Coolidge was the last to see growth on the last cycle but will see growth soon when real 

estate markets surrounding Coolidge prices increase. The public has indicated the yellow 

route is preferable. I agree and urge you to come work with a community that supports 

ADOT.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -172

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

10/30/15

(faxed)

Brent DeRaad, 

President and CEO

Visit Tucson

Dear Study Team: Thank you for the outstanding work that has gone into creating a Draft 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for ADOT's passenger rail study between Tucson and 

Phoenix. As the tourism promotion agency for Tucson and Southern Arizona, we at Visit 

Tucson see tremendous value in creating passenger rail travel between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Our research shows: 

• Metro phoenix is Tucson's top year-round feeder market for visitors. 

• 29% of Tucson visitors fly into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport or Phoenix-Mesa 

Gateway Airport and then drive to Tucson. 

We believe that incoming visitors to Tucson and Phoenix would use passenger rail to travel 

between these metro areas. Among visitors who inquired with us at Visit Tucson, 54% took 

day trips to other Arizona locations with Phoenix being at the top of the list. I offer these 

statistics to support my request to extend the passenger rail corridor to Tucson International 

Airport (TIA) in phase one of construction. Connecting TIA to Sky Harbor and Phoenix-Mesa 

Gateway in phase one would greatly enhance the system's immediate value to residents, 

along with leisure and business travelers. Benefits include: 

• Travelers to Tucson could rent cars or secure other local transportation at TIA; 

• Tucson meetings delegates and leisure/business travelers will have the option of taking 

passenger rail to Sky Harbor or Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, should they be flying in and out of 

metro Phoenix; and 

• TIA will become a more viable option for Arizona travelers due to enhanced connectivity 

with metro Phoenix and its airports. 

Thank you for considering extending phase-one construction of passenger rail between 

Tucson and Phoenix to Tucson International Airport. Please feel free to contact me (520-770-

2149, bderaad@visittucson.org) with questions or comments.

Based on public and agency input, ADOT and FRA will include a 

connection to TUS in future planning and environmental 

studies for the passenger rail system from Tucson to Phoenix. 

As noted elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT anticipates that a 

Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail system would be funded 

incrementally, and that construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific phasing of a future 

passenger rail system is not known at this time but will be 

determined as funding is allocated and as part of subsequent

NEPA review.

10/30/15 Brent L. Davis, 

Executive Director

Southern Arizona 

Lodging & Resort 

Association

The Southern Arizona Lodging & Resort Association (SALARA) represents the hotel and 

lodging industry of Tucson and southern Arizona. SALARA is extremely pleased with the work 

done by the Arizona Department of Transportation and their consultants in creating a Draft 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for their passenger rail study between Phoenix and 

Based on public and agency input, ADOT and FRA will include a 

connection to TUS in future planning and environmental 

studies for the passenger rail system from Tucson to Phoenix. 

As noted elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT anticipates that a 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -173

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Tucson. SALARA's members recognize the importance of the Phoenix market which provides 

a large number of tourists that visit Tucson and southern Arizona every year. Passenger rail 

service between the two cities could enhance the travel experience greatly. As you may or 

may not know, Phoenix is the number one market for Tucson visitors. Almost 3 in 10 visitors 

actually fly into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport or other regional airports and then 

drive to Tucson and southern Arizona. Rail passenger service could become an enticing 

catalyst for many of those visitors to come to Tucson. Conversely, more than half of Tucson's 

visitors take sight-seeing or other day trips to the Phoenix area while visiting Tucson. The 

question is whether or not to extend that rail line in Phase I to Tucson International Airport. 

UL--SALARA strongly believes that this extension is critical to the success of the rail passenger 

corridor between the two cities and should be included in Phase I.--UL Clearly, travelers to 

Tucson will have an option to take passenger rail service to metro Phoenix, should they be 

utilizing Phoenix area airports for the arrival and departure to Arizona. This could enhance 

the economic activity of those airports affected, particularly Tucson International through 

increased car rentals, taxi usage, potential light rail usage, or other transportation. This 

would make Tucson more attractive to travelers with a direct connection to Phoenix and its 

metro airports. Please consider this letter a strong endorsement from SALARA and the 

lodging and resort sector of Tucson and southern Arizona for maximizing the potential of a 

Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail connection and our support for extending Phase I construction 

to Tucson International Airport. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 

brent@salara.org or you can call me at 520-207-9931. Thanks for the opportunity to offer 

input into this process.

Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail system would be funded 

incrementally, and that construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific phasing of a future 

passenger rail system is not known at this time but will be 

determined as funding is allocated and as part of subsequent

NEPA review.

C. Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS Taken at Public Hearings 

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/15/15 Armondo Hewitt

I would like to congratulate you on your study so far. The cost of $5 billion to go 100 miles is 

so cheap. When you consider that Phoenix spent $21 billion to go 21 miles on the light rail, 

it's a small per-mile cost. The only thing I hope that you will consider is that because it is 

Arizona and the heat, that all stops be enclosed and air-conditioned. Together with the help 

of private enterprise, I think that can be done.

Station locations and amenities, such as parking and station 

design features (including protection from the elements), will 

be evaluated in future phases of the study.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -174

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/15/15 William C. “Blue” Crowley

When you said up there, we're going with 120 mile an hour, the bullet trains go a little faster 

and been proving the thing. California is going to be adopting the bullet train so why wouldn't 

we be trying to be interstate rather than inter-county and looking at it as the whole picture? 

You shouldn’t stop in Surprise; you should be going to Wickenburg and into California. So 

when you're asking how we can input and do stuff to this, I go, well, modern technology. 

You're not considering solar as a part of the way to make the thing go down the road. I don't 

see where -- you know, Glendale is a part of this, and you don't have their name there. 

Where are the rail lines that already exist so that when I'm saying, well, this is the alternative 

I want, it shows the capacity that we have already? To put rail on now, we don't have to 

build an engine track going through your communities. But what I would like to bring up is 

the track. Right now, the track is at a level of safety that you can put freight on it; right? And 

is that level of safety for the track used higher or lower than if you're having passengers on 

that same rail? Well, freight you got to put on a better track than if you're just running 

people because if you run people off the tracks, you only kill them. You don't have a 

hazardous situation.

The technology for this corridor has not been decided. 125 

mph was used for purposes of estimating travel times and 

ridership potential. A locomotive technology decision will be 

made upon further analysis at a project level. The Tier1 EIS 

termini were defined in the Notice of Intent as downtown 

Phoenix to downtown Tucson. Other segments are certainly 

to be investigated and are recognized in the work done in this 

study, but are not covered in this document. They will be part 

of future analysis. The safety requirements for passenger 

services exceed those for most freight operations because of 

the potential for injury.

9/15/15 Diane Barker

Now, where I'm going with all of this is that I think there is a route that's missing. I know that 

you're taking care of the East Valley, and there's growth there. There's growth in Buckeye.

There's growth all over the Valley, and when we're going to do this system, are we going to 

make it fast and efficient?

Right now, it probably is diesel and electric, but there's other types of things, even magnets, 

and have it fast, have it an enterprise. You got to find foundations and families that believe in 

this area that got more money than God, and certainly the government, to do what California 

is doing now. Obama stopped funding the bullet train and they're having to go out for P3. So 

I'm saying, go fast. Have it passenger and freight. Have it so that people want to pay. It's an 

enterprise. It's a better trip than your car or anything, and these stations are tri-level, and 

they have services, even dry cleaning. We need to think big. It needs to be run tight like a 

business, and we need to have some money and believe that we will invest in the system.

For years ADOT is supposed to be doing transit, and they've always taken a little teeny 

position behind the city of Phoenix, and what is happening is they should be running the 

express bus to Tucson and see who will pay for that ride. Who will pay to get down there. 

Now, I realize they don't have an express lane, which, you know, is the value of the express 

The Tier1 EIS was defined in the Notice of Intent as downtown 

Phoenix to downtown Tucson. Other segments are certainly 

to be investigated and are recognized in the work done in this 

study, but are not covered in this document. They will be part 

of future analysis.

The preliminary analysis conducted for this Tier 1 EIS study 

assumed the use of diesel multiple unit trains. However, actual 

decisions regarding preferred technologies would be made in 

future phases of the study as part of a project-level

environmental analysis.

Specific funding options, including public-private-partnerships, 

would be evaluated in future phases of this study as part of a 

subsequent planning and environmental analysis. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -175

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

bus on our existing Maricopa roads. So that may be a little problem, but they need to start 

out to try to prove that people will actually do something. We need to know where we're 

going to get the money to pay for this. How will we sustain it? Don't build anything that won't 

be sustained.

9/15/15 Albert Dare

So back to the Yellow and the Orange. I was in favor of the rail service from the beginning, 

very excited about it. I was very concerned about the Orange process because it's tied in with 

a north-south road. And I don't care how beautiful a wall we want to build, it all comes down 

to money. Okay. And that's kind of a side thing. We got to have funding once in a while. But 

anyway, it all comes down to dollars and cents. So I'm very appreciative of keeping the rail 

projects separate from the North-South Corridor, which is the orange route, for dollars and 

cents reasons, okay.

Funding for this project has not yet been identified. The 

project would most likely happen in phases and be funded 

according to each phase. Coordination with other projects to 

look for joint funding opportunities is a potential way to

identify appropriate funding options (e.g., North-South 

Corridor), but no decisions have yet been made.

9/15/15 Tom Dauer

That I'm going to recommend on, on, the Orange Line -- correction. On the Yellow Line, using 

the Union Pacific tracks, that when they plan the stations for stopping the train, they -- I 

recommend the intersection of Union Pacific Train Track and the Arizona Farms Road. On the 

north side of Arizona Farms, that is state land, so it would not be a cost factor for us. And of 

course, dollars and cents are always important. And one of the other things on the 

environment is the people who live along the tracks. The current Yellow Line follows in 

neighborhoods where people are accustomed to trains traveling now. So you will have less 

resistance to the project.

Impacts to residents along tracks of a future passenger rail 

service could require mitigation if in more detailed analysis it 

is found the noise and pollution levels exceed established 

thresholds.

9/15/15 Jerry Sizouski

The comments I want to make is, the one thing I didn't see in the environmental study -- and I 

asked somebody back there, and they said it hasn't extended yet -- is, though they covered 

Gilbert, and they did cover Queen Creek and stuff, they really didn't cover the towns in 

between that are going to be impacted because this is going to be a big impact for cities like 

Eloy or Arizona City, etc., and I'd like to see a little bit of -- if there are going to be stations 

down there, which there have to be, where are those planned to be, and what are they going 

to be? And then the gentleman earlier that was talking about likely the train that you're using 

is a diesel versus the bullet train. This thing isn't going to get built for five, six, seven years. To 

design a track system or a carrying system now for what we currently have technologically is 

not necessarily, in my opinion, looking forward. And the gentleman was correct. I foresee 

All the communities affected by the two corridor alternatives 

covered by the Tier 1 EIS were included in the analysis of 

effects. No specific station locations have been determined, 

so no specific analyses were identified for any communities. 

The technology for this corridor has not yet been decided. The 

125 mph speed was a conservative estimate for purpose of 

estimating travel times and ridership potential. A locomotive 

technology decision will be made upon further analysis at a 

project level. At an appropriate time, potential connections to 

other passenger rail services will be addressed, including, as 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -176

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

that, eventually, this has got to hook up to the California SPUR. I mean, Wickenburg to 

California is in existence, and Surprise is not that far from Wickenburg. So eventually, my 

assumption is going to be that this train will extend down to Wickenburg, and once it does 

that, you know, you got to make sure that you got a situation where you could hook into the 

rail that exists.

appropriate, the California High Speed Rail project.

9/15/15 Rudlof Kolaja

There's a lot of talk about cost effectiveness. What I don't hear is cost effectiveness building 

this high-speed rail. Certainly attractive idea. And I would love it. Question is, can we afford 

it? I would like to hear how many trains we are going to be using. I'm fascinated. Five, 

$5 billion. How many people will be traveling these trains in transit? What are the volumes 

per hour in terms of our direction? We hear probably the (inaudible) not going to be that big, 

but those issues are key issues and are a lot more important. Only in the environmental 

statement you talk about endangered species. But we people are the most endangered 

species in this respect because we build these trains for only customers, just like, for 

instance, what I fear about is, you know, there was station opened in Mesa. The cost of $200 

million. $30,000 spent on one potential person. This is an economic disaster. And I tell you 

one thing. I'm always using the light rail. I love the light rail. One important point I forgot to 

talk about. Every transportation study starts with transportation study to find out what is the 

origin and the destination of those trips. Now, I'm not sure where exactly the origin start and 

end, but I would like to know where the trips of those people who will be using this train 

come from and where they go to. How -- for instance, through my personal point of view, 

going to Tucson, if I'm going to drop -- be dropped off somewhere, and I go to conventions in 

various places in Tucson, how do I get there? What's the connection? Tucson is most 

important start point and destination because something that grand being built should be a 

part of overall, not piecemeal basis.

Funding for this project has not yet been identified. The 

project would most likely happen in phases and be funded 

phase by phase. Travel forecasts indicate there will be about 

17,000 riders per day on the proposed system assuming four 

trains per peak hour and fewer during the off-peak, for a daily 

total of 36 trains. The origin and destination of trips was 

needed to forecast ridership potential and is based on the 

existing and anticipated population and employment, among 

other measures, within the corridor. Travel to Tucson or any 

other station will rely on the ability of a passenger to connect 

within the local area by transit, taxi, bike, Uber, or other mode 

of travel. In Tucson, the Sun Link Streetcar is accessible from 

the proposed downtown station location and affords access to 

the Convention Center and the University of Arizona as well as 

other local facilities. 

9/15/15 Ron Barns

I believe that this is a major thing that's supposed to be going on, right? I mean, like, we're 

talking about extending something that's, like—it's going to take money. Of course. We know 

this. It's going to take money. But you got to think about everything else that it's going to 

generate from this, this, this benefit.

Funding for this project has not yet been identified. The 

project would most likely happen in phases and be funded 

phase by phase.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -177

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/16/15 James Kelley

It is important—and in every meeting I've had with all the various caucuses within our group, 

transportation, and particularly public transportation, and the ability to get to Phoenix in 

ways other than the freeway is very, very important to us. It is imperative that under no

circumstances is the airport option allowed to go by the wayside. It is my personal wish that 

we start the terminus of this railroad at the airport, not somewhere north of downtown, not 

Marana. It must start at the airport, not be promised as a future build. So that is my one 

request amongst all of this. The importance of being able to move our people to job centers is 

ex -- is, is beyond what I can even describe. It just, in all logical manner, the terminus must be 

on the south side at the Tucson International Airport. I also support the Yellow Line. I do 

believe that it is the one with the least environmental impact, next to No Build, and No Build 

is not an option for Legislative District Two.

The Tier1 EIS termini were defined in the Notice of Intent as

downtown Tucson and downtown Phoenix. Other segments 

are certain to be invetigated and are recognized in the work 

done in this study, but are not covered in this document. They 

will be part of future analysis. The connection to TUS is an 

important transportation link within the Tucson area and will 

be part of the next level of analysis for any passenger rail 

phase that includes the Tucson metro area.

9/16/15 Jennifer Paige Southwest Passenger 

Rail Association

I am a retired Amtrak director, and I am here representing as the Arizona representative of 

the Southwest Passenger Rail Association who strongly supports rehabilitation of the Wellton 

to Phoenix Branch Line of the Union Pacific Transcon main line. This gives the Sunset Limited 

access again to the Phoenix Market, which has very positive revenue and riding impact for 

Amtrak, in addition to mitigating highway congestion and reducing greenhouse gases. The 

California State Transportation Agency has already included Los Angeles to Palm Springs as 

an approved passenger rail corridor, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission is 

currently performing feasibility and environmental impact studies for this line. Our inside 

sources indicate that the California State Transportation Agency would like to see the service 

extended as one and more than likely two daily trains between Los Angeles and Phoenix, and 

the economics actually improve even more with the origin and destination. We also believe 

that restoring the Wellton Branch will allow potential future commuter service west to 

Phoenix and to Tucson. This is something that is sorely needed, given the highway congestion 

on I-10, 17, interstate highways.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/16/15 John Moffatt Pima County

We're very supportive of this. There were a couple of topics that we wanted to raise. In the 

study, it said that you would be connecting to other studies, and you know, ADOT is starting 

to kick off the I-11 study. Part of the discussion in the early part of the material I read was the 

congestion between the two cities and addressing this with rail, I think, is important. But the 

While transportation studies such as APRCS and I-11 have 

independent utility, ADOT considers the potential cumulative 

implications of implementing various projects within the 

region. The I-11 Corridor will include a multimodal component 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -178

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

I-11 study that you're just getting ready to start, I think, also is a contributor, so I'd like to 

make sure that those and the considerations and some of the statistics tie to each other. The 

second thing is it was certainly my understanding that the agencies here and in southern 

Arizona supported and really were expecting the rail line to go all the way to the airport, and 

so our—you know, we would certainly ask that that consideration be, be included. The line 

goes by the two Phoenix airports, and I understand you're not planning terminals there, but 

it's at least there. It's not north of there by ten miles, so that would—my point would be, your 

plan ought to include the airport, and certainly, that was—I believe, the county supervisors, 

the board of supervisors, actually commented on that early, early on, so we'd like to 

reemphasize that. The third thing is, and we had an alternative plan too, which is, which is 

very motional at this point in time. And we discussed it, and we were told that it would be put 

into the future as one of the future considerations to maybe tie the Nogales line to the 

Sunset line. And I can't find it. It may be in there, but I've gone through, I think, most of the 

report. So we'd like to at least have that in as, as recognized as a potential, and if that line can 

be abandoned, it comes down from downtown, we can swing the line over to Old Vail 

Connection. Tying into the Sonoran Corridor, we can move the traffic over onto the Sunset 

line. That opens up that rail line down to the airport from downtown.

that could influence some of the thinking about how the 

passenger rail line is developed. The connection to TUS is an 

important transportation link within the Tucson area and will 

be part of the next level of analysis for any passenger rail 

phase that includes the Tucson metro area. Connections to 

Nogales and consideration of the Sonoran Corridor are also 

services that can be built from further analysis of 

opportunities south of Tucson.

9/16/15 Steve Farley State Senator

I'm grateful that this study is finally coming—nearing conclusion. I want to be focused right 

now on the future of what happens after this study. We've had too many studies with really 

good things in this state which end up staying on the shelf and collecting dust. I think that this 

concept of having a rail corridor alternative to I-10 is too important to just stay on the shelf. 

We have to get this done. I wish I had the faith that Congress would come through with 

transportation money for the nation at some point in the future, but despite the good efforts 

of this Secretary of Transportation and his predecessors, I'm not sure that's going to happen, 

and so I think we have to come up with a legislated financial alternative that includes doing 

things locally, and I think a large portion of that is going to be private. So in that regard, I 

think as a way of ensuring that we have the financial feasibility to build this thing, part of this 

study should also be looking toward how we can attract private investors and, and enabling 

them to get a return on their investment through the routing that we decide on. So in that 

regard, I think while the Yellow certainly looks like the preferred route, I think we should be 

open to a hybrid route between the Yellow and the Orange, depending on what might be 

working into the business plan or whatever private party we might be working with, and I 

think in that regard, I'm certainly hoping that this administration is willing to join me in going 

Funding for this project has not yet been identified. The 

project would most likely happen in phases and be funded 

phase by phase. The ability to defray some of the costs using 

non-federal and non-public funding can significantly increase 

its potential for construction. The Yellow Corridor Alternative 

does include elements of the Orange Corridor Alternative as 

"options" should more detailed investigation identify issues in 

some sections that can be avoided by using the Orange 

Corridor. The connection to TUS is an important 

transportation link within the Tucson area and will be part of 

the next level of analysis for any passenger rail phase that 

includes the Tucson metro area.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -179

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

out and selling this plan to private investment firms, of which there are actually many now, 

who have many billions of dollars ready to invest in things like infrastructure, and go and find 

the right partners for this project so that we don't have to pay for all of this ourselves, but we 

can get it done the way we want it to get done, and I think that is, that is far from the 

(inaudible). That is something we can actually, actually get done. And I want to echo the 

voices up here that have already said that we need this to go all the way to Tucson Airport. It 

can't simply be an afterthought. We need to connect all three airports together, and then 

we'll have a much longer network of airports along with this alternative to I-10, and Lord 

knows, I spend a lot of time on I-10 these days. I would love to be able to spend it doing 

something constructive, instead of, like, listening to the radio and staring at the asphalt.

9/16/15 Barry Rosen

I just had to get up because Senator Farley just spoke, and I believe personally that the State 

of Arizona and the legislature and the governor and all the representatives share a 

responsibility to all the people, citizens who live here, to also come up with financial input 

into the process and not to avoid that, not to beat the drum for commercial and all other 

places that should be gone to, but also to participate because the state government, the 

representatives, share a responsibility here, and if they're going to have to raise taxes, then 

this is a good investment. As the good senator said, and I think everybody agrees, it's a good 

investment that will pay off in grand dividends for the future.

Funding for this project has not yet been identified. The 

project would most likely happen in phases and be funded 

phase by phase. Allocating funds to the project will enhance 

the likelihood of it moving forward.

9/16/15 Mike Smejkal Tucson Airport 

Authority

I'd like to echo previous comments in, generally, we are very supportive of this endeavor and 

like to see it go forward and don't have a strong preference on the Yellow versus the Orange, 

but we do have concerns that the way that the Tier 1 analysis was conducted in leaving TIA as 

a future extension. Our understanding going into this was that it was—TIA was—going to be 

the southern terminus for the initial project, and to see it not being included in there and call 

out the future is something very concerning to us, for many of the reasons that's already 

been reiterated here, so I won't reiterate those, but we ask that as you go to finalize this, that 

you have to take another look at that and include that in this Tier 1 analysis.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The connection to TUS is an important transportation link

within the Tucson area and will be part of the next level of 

analysis for any passenger rail phase that includes the Tucson 

metro area.

9/16/15 Wyatt Saul

The first is the projected attendee rate. We are using DTA, or dynamic traffic assigning 

software now to try to model the flow of people within cities. It's very important. And with 

The tool used to forecast ridership is a model developed by 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) called STOPS 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -180

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

that being said, how much ridership would be needed to break even on operating cost? I 

wasn't able to find that on the website. I would love for a study to be done or that 

information to be available. If you have that now, I'd love to hear it. And how much ridership 

would be needed to pay back the construction for this project, so we'll be looking forward to 

seeing that data because us engineers love numbers.

(Simplified Trips-on-Project Software). There are very few 

transportation systems of any kind (rail, bus highway, airport, 

etc.) that completely recoup their operational costs, let alone 

their capital investment, in terms of sheer dollars. The 

benefits are calculated in more comprehensive ways, 

depending on the type of project and its contribution to the 

wellbeing of the users and general public.

9/16/15 Bob Freitas

I'm a very strong supporter of the passenger rail. I would prefer to see electrification versus 

diesel for environmental sustainability reasons. I would like to see, at least in the discussion 

and the planning phases, an extension to Las Vegas as well as to Los Angeles. It could be also 

coordinated with Amtrak. I reflect the comments of the prior speaker. As well as south to 

Mexico (inaudible). We need to think regional. This is a great corridor. I think we are 

underestimating the potential ridership, when people realize the great alternative that they 

have to driving and being stuck in traffic. This has to connect to major centers. It cannot 

bypass them. It cannot be dependent upon shuttles and inefficiencies. The Europeans do it 

very well. And also some other light rail and rail corridors have been demonstrating such, 

such as San Diego. They have a great system that goes all the way to Oceanside and connects 

well with Amtrak. I think we have to look at the consumer and the customer interface. We 

cannot have a clunky interface that isn't friendly to on-boarding and ridership. I think all of 

you have experienced clunky interfaces, and it discourages ridership. That has to be part of 

the planning process. Don't try to scrimp and try to achieve savings on that customer 

interface. It has to be welcoming, accessible, and easy. I would like to make a funding 

suggestion. On the public/private interface and cooperation, look at the rail as part of the 

public portion of it. Look at the stations as part of the private side, where the stations have an 

opportunity, then, to develop around—or there is development around the station, and that 

would encourage private investment, I think, much more rapidly. So, public on the rail; 

private on the stations. And then finally, I think we need to see, as another speaker said, 

some real push from the State and some encouragement from local entities. I'm sorry that 

there aren't more elected officials here. I'm very pleased that Senator Farley is here, but the 

elected officials need to get behind this. This city needs to be here. The county needs to be 

here. And we certainly need it extended, at the minimum, to the Tucson International 

Airport. That cannot be an option. It has to be part of that Tier 1 planning. I didn't see any 

options for bypassing the airports in Phoenix. That's considered as a standard.

At an appropriate time, potential connections to other 

passenger rail services will be addressed. Your point about 

needing to ensure a good interface at stations to streamline 

the trip is well taken. Each station will need to provide the 

appropriate services to support the passenger rail element, 

but many of these services already exist at the larger station 

locations. More specific supporting services will be defined in 

future, more detailed project-level analyses.
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -181

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/16/15 Mike Bording

What I haven't heard here tonight is anybody's experience in the railroad business. I 

personally have 42 years in the railroad business. I am extremely disappointed in what I've 

heard tonight. I've heard we are going to have stations 10 to 12 miles apart. We're supposed 

to be building high speed rail. I heard that this train is going to be diesel and 125 miles an 

hour. In this day and age, that is not high speed. I rode the bullet train in Osaka to Tokyo in 

1969. It went faster than 125 miles an hour. The routes that you have picked are absurd. The 

shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You need to get and start thinking out 

of the box. Get away from the I-10 Corridor. Get away from the UP tracks, and draw a straight 

line and do high-speed rail, 200 miles an hour, and it should be electrified, and as other 

speakers have spoken, it should also go from all the airports.

The technology for this corridor has not yet been decided. The 

125 mph speed was a conservative estimate for purposes of 

estimating travel times and ridership potential. A locomotive 

technology decision will be made upon further analysis at the 

project level.

9/16/15 Nancy Retson

I think one of the things that was overlooked in the meeting tonight is everyone keeps talking 

about going to Phoenix. How about people from Phoenix coming to work in Tucson or coming 

to work along the, along the I-10 Corridor, so this could provide companies a shuttle. I know 

in California, for example, Google has shuttles all over the San Francisco area, 10 bringing 

their, their employees to work. This could be like Rent-A-Car. They could have a special 

section just for that company. Also the other thing that was overlooked here is for small 

cargo. Certainly not large cargo because there are cargo trains, but in addition to having 

private pay from individual riders, there could also be money earned through small cargo. I'm 

thinking specifically mail, for example, because there's so much mail that goes back and forth.

Details of the passenger rail system’s operations have not 

been addressed in this study, but all the concepts you mention 

are a possibility once passenger rail service is in place. Some of 

those amenities could also help offset the cost of operations.

9/16/15 Barry Rosen

And I think it's in everybody's best interest that everybody get involved, including the 

government, and I'm sorry that some of the republican representatives were not present 

today, but money has to be committed from taxes that they have available and move them 

around so that the money can come up or pull part of it together, but they have to make 

some kind of commitment. The government has to make a commitment.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

9/17/15 Mike Hurley

I think it's a great idea, the Yellow Corridor. Let's build it. I'm ready. I'm tired of driving. Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -182

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

9/17/15 Bob Bickel

Looking at the presentation here, at one point it was mentioned that it will follow I-60. I'm 

wondering, how does it follow I-60? Alongside of it? Or would it be taking over some of the 

car lanes that are already there? How is it going to get implemented? Funded. It was 

mentioned, public or private. If it's going to be public, does that mean that the communities 

it's going through would be assessed additional taxes for it? Or is it done by the counties? Or 

is it done by the state? Who is actually going to be paying for it, and how does that happen if 

it's public? If it's private, I guess I would just hope that it's done—not done as the many toll 

roads have been done in the U.S., where it's farmed out to a foreign company to build and 

operate the toll roads—which could be happening in Arizona, by the way—and the state ends

up being on the hook for any shortcomings and—or will assume to that private foreign 

company. There is an existing track that's not too far from where I live running north and 

south. Is that track going to be used as part of the track for this route? Or will it be additional 

track built? How many stops or terminals—I'm not sure what you call them—that you actually 

can get on and off in between, say, Tempe and Tucson? How many are proposed at this time? 

I understand there could be some initially and more added later, but what is the overall plan 

for that? And then I'm curious. What would happen if the train actually would be operating at 

125 miles an hour? What happens when there's a residential haboob, which happens in that 

corridor all the time. So my question is, what's the safety considerations under those 

circumstances?

For purposes of this analysis, recognizing the points you make, 

the Orange Corridor Alternative was assumed to travel in an 

elevated section above the freeways. That is also the reason 

for its much higher cost to construct. The configuration could 

be modified and reconsidered in a future study if there is a 

need to revisit the Orange Corridor Alternative. There are 

conceptually eight stops planned between Tempe and Tucson 

on the preferred Yellow Corridor Alternative for local trains. 

There would be only three for express trains. These details 

are not fixed, but they provide a sense of what could happen. 

More detail is available in the Tier 1 EIS and in the supporting 

Alternatives Analysis. Whether or not train operation in a 

haboob would even be possible, the trains would be expected 

to function only under safe conditions.

9/17/15 Rudolf Kojala

I have so many comments to make but some technical comments. When you talk about 20 

trains a day, 20,000 people, I was informed. I hear that the trains will travel 125 miles an 

hour. There will be stops maybe 10, 20 miles, but how do you accomplish 125 miles speed if 

you have these frequent stops? If there is a local express, are you going to build four sets of 

tracks, just like I take subway in New York City has? Question is, if the system is going to cost 

$5 billion, a number of questions is built. Can we really afford something like that? I 

understand the transit system nowhere in the world is totally covered by cash box, but if it's 

built, it has to be fully used, and otherwise, I don't think there is justification to do it. As I said, 

I don't have enough information to judge that. Hopefully, it will work.

I'm not sure where exactly the origin start and end, but I would like to know where the trips 

of those people who will be using this train come from and where they go to. If I'm going to 

be dropped off somewhere, and I go to conventions in various places in Tucson, how do I get 

The top speed would only be attained along certain portions 

of the corridor, and station stops have been considered in the 

estimation of travel times. There would be both local and 

express trains, and tracks would be designed to accommodate 

both types of service, with passing tracks and station tracks to 

permit safe operation and overtaking when necessary.

Passenger Rail system connections to complementary transit 

services were included in high-level operational assumptions 

for passenger rail service. The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor 

Study - Alternatives Analysis, an Appendix to this EIS 

document, developed a detailed community readiness 

program for each potential station location along the route. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -183

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

there? What's the connection? The intent is to ensure that each community is prepared and 

can take full advantage of the availability of the service. 

9/17/15 Phil Hollins

First of all, looking at the hazardous mitigation planning, trying to find out how are they going 

to deal with certain types of flooding in certain areas because, if you go to Pinal County and 

you look right down I-10, you're going to notice that there are some areas that are going to 

flood versus other areas, and how will that impact the overall study?

I was wondering if they were going to use some of the existing tracks that were there 

because there's military rails that are still in existence and—but not knowing whether those 

were going to be operative or not or may be conducive to what you're trying to do.

And one more thing is the cost. Does the cost include security? Because this is going to be an 

opportunity—be a great opportunity for us, but it's also going to be a great opportunity for 

drug runners and everyone else to actually start using those routes. So the question is, what 

type of homeland security, has anybody coordinated with law enforcement, DPS, or anyone 

else to make sure there's no—you know, that all the bases are covered, and is that part of the 

$6.8 million to $8 million—$8 billion?

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

The Green Corridor Alternative (which follows I-10) was not 

evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS. It did not attract ridership 

comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively serve as 

many key population centers within the study corridor, and 

presented a high degree of potential cultural resource 

impacts. Considering the overall estimated costs, projected 

ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts, a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative is considered to be more cost 

efficient and a better performing passenger rail system 

compared to the other alternatives. During subsequent 

environmental studies, ADOT would evaluate potential flood 

hazards and identify appropriate mitigation measures in 

coordination with the federal lead and cooperating agencies. 

Passenger rail services are not assumed to run on existing 

railroad tracks. It would be built to tighter tolerances to 

accommodate a much higher level of performance than 

currently allowed for freight trains. 

Cost estimates developed for the AA and shown in the Tier 1 

EIS include construction, operation, and maintenance. The 

estimates do not include the cost of law enforcement or 

security services.

9/17/15 Victoria Young-Chiverton

I drive this highway every day from southeast Tucson to here. I have an hour-and-45-minute 

commute. I don't mind if my commute isn't any shorter. I'd just like for it to be safer, and I'm 

really excited about this project. I've been hoping for something like this for years because 

between Coolidge and Tucson, it's a super dangerous drive, and when those dust storms roll 

in and you're in a car, there's an accident immediately at Picacho Peak, so I'm just really 

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -184

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

excited about this and supportive of it, and I'm really looking for a safer commute from 

Coolidge to Tucson.

9/17/15 Margarita Sanchez

My question is -- and I think someone brought this up -- are we going to be using made-inthe-U.S.A. products?Current policy requires projects receiving federal funding to 

“buy American,” i.e., purchase and utilize materials and 

equipment manufactured in the US.

9/17/15 Justin Williams

I support the Orange Alternative. I believe that it should be built alongside the North-South 

Corridor Freeway Project that they're considering. I believe that there would be a lot of 

opportunity to grow and improve on the project later on. I mean, the Pinal County growth is 

supposed to almost double in 10 years in 2025; and by the end of 2050, it's supposed to be at 

about 900,000 people, and I believe there should be enough room for the rail to expand and 

be there for people.

The Yellow Corridor Alternative would support much of the 

same population as the Orange Corridor Alternative with 

regard to anticipated growth in Pinal County. 

9/17/15 William C. “Blue” Crowley

I'd like to start by saying that with the existing track that there already is, one, why aren't we 

just getting to that and doing it, and I don't see where the cost of that is. Two, with their 

statement about going 120 miles an hour, even on all the routes that they were showing the 

options, where would they be going at? You know, between Tucson and Eloy? Or Tucson and 

Coolidge? If you'd just give me four more minutes to finish this. So that if we were to just use 

the existing technology, we could be doing stuff now. I also didn't see anywhere within the 

plan of using future technology, specifically, magnetic levitation. I also have a problem with 

the way the thing is being presented. If we did use the existing track—and them saying, well, 

we got to wait for the public sector or this, that, and the other thing, what it is, if we're using 

the existing track, we need to deal with Union Pacific to put in a second line, and that's where 

the costs are going to be because, if we had two lines, we would have one going north, south, 

east, west; and then the other doing the opposite. With the way that the presentation was, I 

had a problem with that. One, that we're having the meeting here in Coolidge because, well, 

that's where the route will go through, but one of the other options, the route went through 

Maricopa on the map, which I have a lot of problems with. It showed Maricopa, well, not at 

all. It didn't show the major population center within this county. If we are going to be 

looking at this realistically, is it a program that we need to be interstate, not just intercounty? 

And I also don't see the fortitude and foresight what this even—on any of the maps that 

The existing UPRR track in the Yellow Corridor Alternative 

cannot be used because it does not meet the more demanding 

tolerances required for the much higher speed associated with 

the passenger rail service.

Regarding destinations outside of the Tucson to Phoenix 

corridor, the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study 

completed by the Federal Railroad Administration looked, at a 

very high level, at the possibilities of a high-speed rail service 

linking the main Arizona metro areas with destinations in 

California and Nevada. That report is available on the FRA 

website at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17109. 

Station locations and amenities, such as parking and station 

design features (including protection from the elements), 

would be evaluated in future phases of the study.

Passenger Rail system connections to complementary transit 

services were included in high level operational assumptions 

for passenger rail service. The Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor 
Public Comment Resolution Appendix 

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS -185

Date Submitted Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

when it did show the existing rail lines, it didn't take it all the way to Wickenburg to show that 

there is the Arizona-California Rail. We should be using every single one of the rails that we 

have now with existing technology planning for the future because, as a part of an intermodal 

system, that would be the way to go. With Maricopa County and the region of MAG, all I see 

right now is a joke when it comes to our mass transit system. We don't even cover 10 percent 

of the area. The infrastructure is so pathetic that it's a hazard to health and the welfare of the 

citizens that use it. Today was a day that we had a UV Index warning of very high. That meant 

that if you were of white skin and you were standing in direct sunlight for over 15 minutes, it 

was injurious to your health. Well, 70 percent of the bus stops don't have shelter. So 70 

percent of the bus stops, if your bus wasn't within 15 minutes, we were trying to kill the 

riders here.

When I look at the infrastructure of this, and as I pointed out at the meeting in Phoenix, I find 

it fascinating that the mayors of Queen Creek and Gilbert were very much for this mass 

transit and said how much their population would be using it, but as I pointed out to them, 

they have no mass transit in either one of their communities, so if the people were using the 

rail, what were they going to use when they got off of it? If they're coming up from Tucson, 

how were they going to get around your community? When you're bringing it from Gilbert, 

Queen Creek, and Chandler, where are we going to be taking it? Is it just this circle in Mesa? 

Is there an existing Mesa facility? I know that there's a Tempe facility. I know that there's a 

Phoenix facility. And if we had the foresight to show what was going on, we would also know 

that there's a facility in Glendale—and there's also a facility in Wickenburg.

Study - Alternatives Analysis, an Appendix to this EIS 

document, developed a detailed community readiness 

program for each potential station location along the route. 

The intent is to ensure that each community is prepared and 

can take full advantage of the availability of the service.

Dan Millis

I would like to encourage this project to move forward! We need a better way to travel 

between major urban centers than interstate highways. Thanks you for doing this analysis 

and I hope that the next steps will be taken to fund this project and build it in a well thought 

out manner.

Thank you for your comment and participation in this study. 

 

Air Quality Appendix 
Air Quality Appendix-1 

1 Air Quality Appendix

2 A.1 Mobile Source Air Toxics

3 In addition to the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, EPA also regulates air toxics under 

4 section 202 of the CAA. Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics 

5 (pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer) defined by the CAA. MSATs denote 

6 compounds emitted from on-road mobile sources (vehicles), non-road mobile sources (such as 

7 airplanes and locomotives), and stationary sources (such as factories and refineries). In 2001, 

8 EPA issued a Final Rule (66 FR 17230) on controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

9 EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or expected 

10 effect of an air pollutant. It is the lead authority for administering the CAA and its amendments, 

11 and has specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. EPA is 

12 in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air 

13 pollutants. The agency maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is “a 

14 compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their 

15 potential to cause human health effects” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/iris/). Each report contains 

16 assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and 

17 quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with 

18 uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. 

19 Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of 

20 MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in 

21 Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA 

22 Documents (FHWA 2012). Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high 

23 exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the 

24 respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious are the adverse human 

25 health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, 

26 http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions 

27 substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=306).

28 The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling, dispersion 

29 modeling, and exposure modeling followed by final determination of health impacts. Each step 

30 in the process builds on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are 

31 encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete 

32 differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These 

33 difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70-year) assessments because information regarding 

34 changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time 

35 frame is not available, forcing the need for unsupportable assumptions. 
Air Quality Appendix

Air Quality Appendix-2 

1 There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the 

2 various MSATs because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of 

3 occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI 

4 (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is no national consensus on 

5 air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT 

6 compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/ 

7 ~basicinformation.htm#g) and HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=395) have not 

8 established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel particulate matter in ambient 

9 settings.

10 There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context 

11 is the process used by EPA as provided by the CAA to determine whether more stringent 

12 controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or 

13 to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum 

14 achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The 

15 decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an 

16 "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than 

17 approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of 

18 which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions 

19 from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks 

20 from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk 

21 determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 

22 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

23 Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision framework. 

24 Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of transit projects 

25 would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable.

26 Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any 

27 predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than 

28 the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such 

29 assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this 

30 information against project benefits—such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and 

31 fatalities, plus improved access for emergency response—that are better suited for quantitative 

32 analysis.

33 Emissions of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel locomotive engines contribute to the 

34 nonattainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone. EPA has established emission standards for 

35 these pollutants for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives (see 73 FR 25098, 
Air Quality Appendix

Air Quality Appendix-3 

1 Locomotive and Commercial Marine Rule). EPA is projecting that PM2.5 and NOx emissions will 

2 drop as a result of these standards.

3 For any future alignment selected, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the 

4 resulting VMTs, assuming that other variables, such as fleet mix, are the same for each corridor. 

5 It is expected that VMTs for any future alignment selected would be lower than VMTs under 

6 the No Build Alternative due to a reduction in vehicles on the road resulting from the 

7 implementation of transit service. Traffic congestion would be reduced on the roadways within 

8 the study corridors, which would result in a reduction of air pollutants. Further analysis would 

9 be conducted during Tier 2 to quantify MSAT emissions.

10 A.2 Monitoring Station Data

11 Table A-1 below and Figure A-1 on page 7 of this Air Quality Appendix indicate the locations of 

12 air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the corridor alternatives. Bold numbers in the 

13 table represent an exceedance. In addition, Figure A-1 shows the federal Class I areas in the 

14 study area and their proximity to the corridor alternatives.

Table A-1. Monitoring Stations near the Corridor Alternatives

Location Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pima County

190 West Pennington – Tucson CO 1-hr 1.5 n/a n/a n/a

CO 8-hr 1.0 n/a n/a n/a

1237 South Beverly – Tucson CO 1-hr 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.8

CO 8-hr 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0

22nd & Alvernon – Tucson CO 1-hr 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3

CO 8-hr 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.2

2745 North Cherry – Tucson CO 1-hr 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.4

CO 8-hr 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2

400 West River Road – Tucson CO 1-hr 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0

CO 8-hr 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6

2601 South Kolb Road – Tucson CO 1-hr 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.4

CO 8-hr 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9

3401 West Orange Grove Road – Tucson PM10 24-hr 97 57 89 88

8840 West Robinson Street – Rillito PM10 24-hr 99 43 n/a n/a
Air Quality Appendix

Air Quality Appendix-4 

Table A-1. Monitoring Stations near the Corridor Alternatives

Location Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 2012

1601 South 6th Avenue – South Tucson PM10 24-hr 127 66 87 89

1016 West Prince Road – Tucson PM10 24-hr 75 58 55 81

12101 North Camino De Oeste – Marana PM10 24-hr 41 35 65 41

4625 East Broadway – Tucson PM10 24-hr 52 33 n/a n/a

6910 South Santa Clara Avenue – Tucson PM10 24-hr 48 50 68 75

2498 North Geronimo – Tucson PM10 24-hr 124 66 85 88

Pinal County

305 East Superstition Boulevard – Apache 

Junction

Ozone 8-hr 0.069 0.073 0.075 0.076

3955 East Superstition Boulevard – Apache 

Junction

PM10 24-hr 38 43 255 73

PM2.5 24-hr 12 12 42 14

301 East Combs Road – Queen Creek Ozone 8-hr 0.062 0.062 n/a n/a

PM10 24-hr 180 110 280 179

10 South Queen Anne Drive – Queen Valley Ozone 8-hr 0.070 0.072 0.078 0.078

212 East Broadway – Coolidge PM10 24-hr 88 81 72 97

970 North Eleven Mile Corner Road – Casa 

Grande

PM10 24-hr 165 182 1,161 106

801 North Main Street – Eloy PM10 24-hr 120 80 127 116

Pinal Air Park Road – Red Rock Ozone 8-hr 0.065 0.066 0.070 0.072

PM10 24-hr 49 63 57 122

660 West Aero Drive – Casa Grande Ozone 8-hr 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.070

401 Marshall Street – Casa Grande PM10 24-hr 274 127 428 174

PM2.5 24-hr 19 21 23 19

Maricopa County

3315 West Indian School Road – Phoenix CO 1-hr 5.0 3.3 n/a n/a

CO 8-hr 3.3 2.3 n/a n/a

3847 West Earll Drive – Phoenix Ozone 8-hr 0.068 0.075 0.078 0.083

CO 1-hr 4.8 4.2 3.9 4.5

CO 8-hr 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.5

PM10 24-hr 118 86 266 148
Air Quality Appendix

Air Quality Appendix-5 

Table A-1. Monitoring Stations near the Corridor Alternatives

Location Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 2012

310 S Brooks – Mesa CO 1-hr 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.1

CO 8-hr 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3

PM10 24-hr 65 39 90 57

601 East Butler Drive & N 6th Street – 

Phoenix

Ozone 8-hr 0.072 0.079 0.082 0.083

CO 1-hr 2.1 2.4 2.7 1.8

CO 8-hr 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.1

PM10 24-hr 66 39 184 140

6000 West Olive Avenue – Glendale Ozone 8-hr 0.068 0.074 0.076 0.078

CO 1-hr 1.9 8.9 1.8 1.8

CO 8-hr 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3

PM10 24-hr 83 62 240 136

1645 East Roosevelt Street – Phoenix Ozone 8-hr 0.069 0.072 0.073 0.077

CO 1-hr 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.3

CO 8-hr 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0

PM10 24-hr 130 63 307 137

2857 North Miller Road – Scottsdale CO 1-hr 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.9

CO 8-hr 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.3

1128 North 27th Avenue – Phoenix CO 1-hr 3.2 3.9 3.0 3.5

CO 8-hr 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.1

PM10 24-hr 123 135 254 212

33 West Tamarisk Avenue – Phoenix Ozone 8-hr 0.067 0.074 0.076 0.078

CO 1-hr 3.4 4.3 2.9 3.0

CO 8-hr 2.2 3.1 2.0 1.6

PM10 24-hr 169 112 338 285

275 South Ellis – Chandler CO 1-hr 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7

CO 8-hr 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.3

4530 North 17th Avenue – Phoenix Ozone 8-hr 0.073 0.076 0.078 0.076

CO 1-hr 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.8

CO 8-hr 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.6

PM10 24-hr 106 47 241 120

1525 South College Avenue – Tempe Ozone 8-hr 0.067 0.068 0.070 0.073
Air Quality Appendix

Air Quality Appendix-6 

Table A-1. Monitoring Stations near the Corridor Alternatives

Location Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 2012

CO 1-hr 3.6 2.4 3.4 2.1

CO 8-hr 2.1 1.6 2.9 1.6

PM10 24-hr n/a n/a n/a 145

16825 North Dysart – Surprise Ozone 8-hr 0.069 0.071 0.070 0.073

CO 1-hr 0.9 1.8 0.9 1.0

CO 8-hr 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6

PM10 24-hr 62 63 239 127

26453 West MC85 – Buckeye Ozone 8-hr 0.062 0.064 0.067 0.068

CO 1-hr 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.8

CO 8-hr 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5

PM10 24-hr 400 107 296 202

1310 South 15th Avenue – Phoenix PM10 24-hr 118 66 51 n/a

Source: EPA, PDEQ, PCAQCD, and Maricopa County.

Note: Bold numbers represent an exceedance. 

1 

2 
Florence

Marana

Tucson

Eloy

Coolidge

Casa

Grande

Maricopa

Tempe

Mesa

Gilbert

Phoenix

Oro 

Valley

PINAL COUNTY

PIMA COUNTY

MARICOPA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?É

Q?Æ

UAõ UAú

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈ !"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a Q?È !"d

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Sacaton

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

Chandler

Superior

Glendale

Scottsdale

Apache

Junction

UAÛ

Superstition

Wilderness

Saguaro

National

Park

Catalina

Foothills

Guadalupe

San

Tan

Valley

Air Quality Appendix

Figure A-1. Air Quality Monitoring Stations and Federal Class I Areas

Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Appendix-7

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Yellow Corridor

Alternative

Orange Corridor

Alternative

#0 Air Quality 

Monitoring Station

Federal Class I Area

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2013; Environmental Protection

Agency 2013; Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013; Arizona Land

Resource Information System 2013

N
Alternatives Analysis Report

iv

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 Introduction and Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 11

1.3 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................................................. 11

1.3.1 Study Background .................................................................................................................................................11

1.3.2 Scoping, Public, and Agency Outreach..................................................................................................................13

1.3.3 Need .....................................................................................................................................................................13

1.3.4 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................14

1.3.5 Population and Employment Estimate .................................................................................................................15

1.3.6 Current Transportation Modes .............................................................................................................................15

1.3.7 Mobility and Travel Time ......................................................................................................................................15

1.3.8 Intercity and Commuter Demand .........................................................................................................................15

2.0 Alternatives Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.1 Prior Studies ..........................................................................................................................................................17

2.1.2 Three-Level Technical Evaluation .........................................................................................................................18

2.1.3 Analysis Categories ...............................................................................................................................................19

2.1.4 Public and Agency Outreach .................................................................................................................................19

2.2 Travel Forecasting Approach ............................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Level 1 Travel Demand Assessment ......................................................................................................................20

2.2.2 Level 2 Travel Demand Assessment ......................................................................................................................20

2.2.3 Level 3 Travel Demand Assessment ......................................................................................................................20

2.3 System Operating Assumptions........................................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Rail Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................................20

2.3.2 Non Rail Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................23

3.0 Alternatives Development and Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Range of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 24

3.1.1 Description of Range of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................24

3.1.2 Initial Screening ....................................................................................................................................................27

3.1.3 Initial Screening Technical Results ........................................................................................................................35

3.1.4 Initial Screening Public and Agency Outreach Considerations .............................................................................35

3.2 Conceptual Alternatives (Level 2 Evaluation) ....................................................................................................... 36

3.2.1 Description of Conceptual Alternatives ................................................................................................................36

3.2.2 Level 2 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................43

3.2.3 Level 2 Evaluation Technical Results .....................................................................................................................52

3.2.4 Level 2 Public Outreach Results ............................................................................................................................53

3.2.5 Level 2 Agency Outreach ......................................................................................................................................53

3.2.6 Conceptual Alternatives Removed from Consideration .......................................................................................54

3.3 Final Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................ 54

3.3.1 Description of Final Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................55

3.3.2 Level 3 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................59

3.3.3 Level 3 Evaluation Technical Results .....................................................................................................................71

3.3.4 Level 3 Public Outreach Results ............................................................................................................................72

3.3.5 Level 3 Agency Outreach Results ..........................................................................................................................73

3.4 Preferred Alternative .......................................................................................................................................... 74

3.4.1 General .................................................................................................................................................................74

3.4.2 Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................................................74

4.0 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................... 76

4.1 Environmental Impact Statement .......................................................................................................................................76

4.2 Service Development Plan ...................................................................................................................................................76

4.2.1 Potential Implementation Segments ....................................................................................................................76

Table of Figures

Figure 1—San Diego COASTER Commuter Train.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2—Amtrak Acela Intercity Train ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Figure 3—Evaluation Process....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 4—Range of Alternatives Route Segments ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 5—Range of Alternatives Potential Stations ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 6—Conceptual Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 7—I-10 Congestion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 8—Final Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 9—Final Orange and Yellow Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 10—Preferred Yellow Alternative ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 11—Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 12—Previous Statewide Studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 13—Previous Regional Studies ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 14—Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 15—Suburban Growth, Phoenix Metropolitan Area ...................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 16—Dust Storm on I-10 .................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 17—North-South Corridor Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 18—U.S. Emerging Megaregions .................................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 19—Corridors Identified in Prior Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 20—Evaluation Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 21—Corridor Support Team Workshop .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 22—Travel Demand Assessment Process ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 23—Urban Freight Rail.................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 25—Urban Typical Track Section .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 24—Rural Freight Rail ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 26—Existing Rail Network ............................................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 27—Future Western States Rail Network ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 29—Los Angeles Metro Silver Line BRT .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 28—Phoenix Union Station ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 30—Range of Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 31—Route Segments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 32—Potential Stations .................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 33—Prototypical System Hub Station Area Development.............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 34—Prototypical Regional Station Area Plan .................................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 35—Prototypical Local Station Footprint........................................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 37—Example Route Composed of Multiple Route Segments......................................................................................................... 27

Figure 36—Initial Screening ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 38—Existing or Planned Transportation Use .................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 39—Pinal County Desert ................................................................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 40—Infringement on Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 41—Casa Grande National Monument ........................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 42—Historic/Cultural/Archeological Places .................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 43—Sun Corridor New Housing Construction................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 44—Land Use Compatibility ........................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 45—Study Area Institutions ............................................................................................................................................................ 33
iv

Figure 46—Institutional Character of the Corridor ....................................................................................................................................33

Figure 47—Segments Used in Alternatives for Further Study ....................................................................................................................34

Figure 48—Commuter Rail Bicycle Connection ..........................................................................................................................................35

Figure 49—Public Scoping ..........................................................................................................................................................................35

Figure 50—Conceptual Alternative Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................................36

Figure 51—Conceptual Alternatives...........................................................................................................................................................37

Figure 52—Conceptual Blue (Bus) Alternative ...........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 53—Conceptual Green Alternative .................................................................................................................................................38

Figure 54—Conceptual Orange Alternative ...............................................................................................................................................38

Figure 55—Conceptual Purple Alternative .................................................................................................................................................39

Figure 56—Conceptual Red Alternative .....................................................................................................................................................39

Figure 57—Conceptual Teal Alternative.....................................................................................................................................................40

Figure 58—Conceptual Yellow Alternative.................................................................................................................................................40

Figure 59—Route Segments—Level 2 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................41

Figure 60—Potential Station Areas—Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................42

Figure 61—Level 2 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................................43

Figure 62—Superstition Vistas Transportation Plan ..................................................................................................................................44

Figure 63—UP Sunset Route ......................................................................................................................................................................45

Figure 64—Tucson Amtrak Station.............................................................................................................................................................46

Figure 65—Tempe Historic Rail Depot .......................................................................................................................................................46

Figure 66—Rillito River ...............................................................................................................................................................................47

Figure 67—Commuter Rail Construction ...................................................................................................................................................49

Figure 68—Metrolink Commuter Train ......................................................................................................................................................50

Figure 69—Tempe At-grade Rail Crossing ..................................................................................................................................................51

Figure 70—UP Sunset Route ......................................................................................................................................................................52

Figure 72—Level 2 Public Preference .........................................................................................................................................................53

Figure 74—Level 2 Agency Preference .......................................................................................................................................................53

Figure 71—Information Booth ...................................................................................................................................................................53

Figure 73—CST Meeting .............................................................................................................................................................................53

Figure 75—Final Alternative Evaluation .....................................................................................................................................................54

Figure 76—Teal Alternative ........................................................................................................................................................................55

Figure 77—Final Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................................................56

Figure 78—Route Segments—Level 3 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................57

Figure 79—Potential Stations—Level 3 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................58

Figure 80—French TGV ..............................................................................................................................................................................58

Figure 81—Level 3 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................................59

Figure 82—Final Orange and Yellow Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................60

Figure 83—Burrowing Owl .........................................................................................................................................................................62

Figure 84—Potential Cultural Sites ............................................................................................................................................................63

Figure 85—Train Bypassing Roadway Congestion......................................................................................................................................64

Figure 86—Tucson Streetcar Groundbreaking ...........................................................................................................................................65

Figure 87—Station Boardings and Link Volumes—Orange Alternative .....................................................................................................68

Figure 88—Station Boardings and Link Volumes—Yellow Alternative.......................................................................................................69

Figure 89—Denver Transit Center ..............................................................................................................................................................70

Figure 90—Information Booth ...................................................................................................................................................................72

Figure 91—Outreach Survey ......................................................................................................................................................................72

Figure 92—Passenger Rail Public Priorities ................................................................................................................................................73

Figure 93—Preferred Yellow Alternative ...................................................................................................................................................75

Figure 94—Potential Implementation Segments .......................................................................................................................................76

Table of Tables

Table 1—Overall Level 2 Screening Results ................................................................................................................................. 5

Table 2—Overall Level 3 Screening Results ................................................................................................................................. 7

Table 3—Relevant Projects....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 4—Estimated Population Change .................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 5—Estimated Employment Change ................................................................................................................................. 15

Table 6—Estimated Daily Inter- and Intra-county Commute Trips ............................................................................................. 15

Table 7—Mode Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 8—Evaluation Criteria Overview—Initial Screening ......................................................................................................... 28

Table 9—Initial Screening Criteria Weighting ............................................................................................................................ 34

Table 10—Public Scoping Common Themes ............................................................................................................................. 35

Table 11—Potential Station Areas—Level 2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 43

Table 12—Evaluation Criteria Overview—Level 2 Evaluation .................................................................................................... 44

Table 13—Compatibility with Local Plans ................................................................................................................................. 45

Table 14—Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership.................................................................................................. 45

Table 15—Compatibility of Station Areas ................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 16—Station Area Populations Served .............................................................................................................................. 46

Table 17—Potential Noise Receptors ........................................................................................................................................ 47

Table 18—Historic, Cultural, and Archeological ........................................................................................................................ 47

Table 19—Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 20—Wildlife Corridors .................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 21—Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 48

Table 22—Total Annual Operating Cost .................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 23—Annual Operating Cost—Commuter and Intercity Share ........................................................................................... 48

Table 24—Total Capital Costs ................................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 25—Total Capital Cost—Commuter and Intercity Share .................................................................................................. 49

Table 26—Ease of Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 27—Predictability and Dependability .............................................................................................................................. 50

Table 28—Commuter Demand ................................................................................................................................................. 50

Table 29—Intercity Demand ..................................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 30—Travel Time ............................................................................................................................................................. 51

Table 31—Major Conflicts ........................................................................................................................................................ 51

Table 32—Level 2 Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................................................ 52

Table 33—Potential Station Areas—Level 3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 58

Table 34—Criteria Overview—Level 3 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 59

Table 35—Compatibility with Local Plans ................................................................................................................................. 61

Table 36—Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership.................................................................................................. 61

Table 37—Compatibility of Station Areas ................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 38—Populations Served .................................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 39—Potential Noise Receptors ........................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 40—Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources ........................................................................................................ 63

Table 41—Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 63

Table 42—Wildlife Corridors .................................................................................................................................................... 63

Table 43—Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 44—Automobile Emissions Reduction ............................................................................................................................. 64

Table 45—Estimated Weekday Revenue Service Assumptions—Orange Alternative ................................................................. 65
iv

Table 46—Estimated Weekday Revenue Service Assumptions—Yellow Alternative .................................................................. 65

Table 47—Estimated Operating Costs—Orange Alternative ..................................................................................................... 65

Table 48—Estimated Operating Costs—Yellow Alternative ...................................................................................................... 65

Table 49—Annual Operating Costs........................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 50—Estimated Capital Costs (in FTA Standard Cost Category Format) — Orange Alternative........................................... 66

Table 51—Estimated Capital Costs (in FTA Standard Cost Category Format) — Yellow Alternative ............................................ 66

Table 52—Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 53—Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 54—Right-of-Way Cost ................................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 55—Ease of Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 67

Table 56—Predictability and Dependability ............................................................................................................................. 67

Table 57—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Trip Type .......................................................................................................... 68

Table 58—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Trip Distance..................................................................................................... 68

Table 59—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Transit Dependents........................................................................................... 68

Table 60— FTA STOPS Stations and Travel Times—Orange Alternative ..................................................................................... 69

Table 61— FTA STOPS Stations and Travel Times—Yellow Alternative ...................................................................................... 70

Table 62—Reduction in Automobile Use .................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 63—Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity ........................................................................................................................ 70

Table 64—Travel Time ............................................................................................................................................................. 71

Table 65—Potential Rail and Automobile Conflicts ................................................................................................................... 71

Table 66—Fatality and Injury Reduction................................................................................................................................... 71

Table 67—Overall Level 3 Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................................... 72

Table 68—Paired Comparisons of Select Features .................................................................................................................... 73
iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA alternatives analysis

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation

APRCS Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study

ARRF-II Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model

AZTDM Arizona Statewide Travel Demand Model

BNSF Railway Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

bqAZ Building a Quality Arizona

BRT bus rapid transit

CBD central business district

CONNECT Conceptual Network Connections Tool

CST Corridor Support Team

CTTP Census Transportation Planning Package

DCR Design Concept Report

DMU diesel multiple unit train

EIS environmental impact statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GIS geographic information system

GRIC Gila River Indian Community

HOV high-occupancy vehicle

HSIPR high speed and intercity passenger rail I-10 Interstate 10

LRT light rail transit

MAG Maricopa Association of Governments

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PAG Pima Association of Governments

RTP regional transportation plan

SDP service development plan

SHCG Species and Habitat Conservation Guide

SR State Route

STOPS Simplified Trips-on-Project Software

TAZ traffic analysis zone

TIA Tucson International Airport

UP Union Pacific Railroad

VHT vehicle hours traveled

VMT vehicle miles traveled
1

Executive Summary

As part of its mission of providing a safe, efficient, cost-effective transportation system, the Arizona Department of

Transportation (ADOT) wishes to serve commuter and intercity travel needs and enhance travel opportunities within

Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties. Statewide and regional transportation planning efforts undertaken from 2007

to 2010 (“Building a Quality Arizona” or bqAZ) have recommended implementing passenger rail to add travel

capacity to what highways already provide. For this reason, ADOT is studying passenger rail service options between

the cities of Tucson and Phoenix to provide more travel choices in this 115-mile-long corridor by introducing

passenger rail service. This would provide an alternative travel mode and would reduce travel times. By providing an

alternative to private single-passenger vehicle travel within the study corridor, passenger rail would avoid traveler

delays caused by highway congestion, enhance highway safety, and reduce pollutant emissions on Interstate 10

(I-10). This project—the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study (APRCS)—focuses on intercity and commuter mobility

between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas, including Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties. The purpose of

the project is to examine various means of implementing a high-capacity facility that would serve both intercity and

commuter needs together. The project purpose is to:

• Investigate ways to reduce the rate of growth in congestion and divert highway trips within the

Tucson-to-Phoenix travel corridor

• Increase access to existing and planned employment and activity centers within the three-county study area

• Provide reliable travel times and safe travel within an increasingly congested region that currently affords

few transportation alternatives to the private automobile

• Recommend a route and travel mode to connect the suburban and rural areas between Tucson and Phoenix

• Facilitate continued development of a comprehensive, multimodal, and interconnected regional and

multiregional transportation network that provides mobility choices for existing and future needs and allows

connectivity to systems beyond the Tucson-to- Phoenix corridor

Between 1990 and 2010, the combined population of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties increased by over

78 percent, from 2.9 million to nearly 5.2 million,

with an over 61 percent increase between 1991 and

2010 in the number of nonfarm jobs. This

three-county study area forms part of a clustered

network of cities—a “megaregion”—known

informally as the “Sun Corridor.” A look at travel

patterns, available transit services, and trip times

shows that the need to move people from one place

to another is also growing. Based on population and

travel forecasts, and the amount of available open

land within the corridor, travel markets are

expected to continue to grow in the future;

however, opportunities to increase the carrying

capacity of the region’s roadway network are limited. Given the current travel demand and projected growth, there

is a clearly demonstrated need in the corridor for major transportation improvements to address existing and

anticipated unpredictability and inefficiency in the transportation system. Transportation improvements are also

needed to expand on currently limited transportation options, and increase transportation system capacity needed

in the future.

Specifically, as the region evolves there will be explicit and overlapping commuter and intercity needs, as defined

below:

• Commuter need—Demand for commuter services, where most travelers make same-day round trips, exists

within the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. Demand is expected to grow in the future, as population

growth in the service area is projected to

remain high over the next few decades.

The average journey to work within the

study area has grown longer as

residential development has spread from

the major cities to outlying areas and as

population growth has increased traffic

congestion. As development in Pinal

County proceeds, commuter activity will

continue to expand in the areas between

Phoenix and Tucson, with major daily

commutes taking place between Pinal

County and neighboring Maricopa and

Pima Counties.

• Intercity need—Travel between cities in the Sun Corridor for non-work purposes also accounts for many

trips. As population and travel demand grow, intercity travel by auto and air will suffer from increasing

congestion and time delays—especially in metropolitan areas, at and around airports, and on weekends and

holidays. This decline in transportation service and the quality of the travel experience adversely affects

intercity travelers, other users of the system, commercial carriers, and the general public.

• Commuter and intercity common need—During the scoping process, respondents expressed a desire for

both commuter and intercity service. In both agency and public scoping, many participants independently

suggested co-locating intercity and commuter service (express and local) to utilize one corridor with multiple

operating plans.

The analysis of opportunities within the Sun Corridor indicates that among the effective choices for improving travel

is a higher speed rail service, which can serve both a commuter and intercity need, and would complement and

augment the existing highway system. A rail option would likely offer an increase in the level of travel reliability, new

travel capacity, and corridor efficiency.

Figure 1—San Diego COASTER Commuter Train

Figure 2—Amtrak Acela Intercity Train
2

Alternatives Analysis Methodology

The APRCS used a three-level process to formulate, evaluate, and refine the potential mode, routing, system hub,

and approximate station areas within the Tucson-to-Phoenix corridor, in addition to input from public and agency

stakeholders. Each step in the process was increasingly more comprehensive, refining the evaluation criteria to

assess each remaining alternative at a higher level of detail than the previous step. The evaluation methodology and

criteria used in the three-level analysis were developed to be compatible with typical Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) evaluation methodology requirements. The process

for an FRA Tier 1 environmental impact statement (EIS) includes assessing beneficial and adverse environmental

effects associated with a reasonable range of alternatives. The methodology and criteria for the FTA alternatives

analysis (AA) process require analyzing reasonable and promising alternatives based on a range of measures

designed to understand each alternative’s cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, and potential fatal flaws. The three

levels of evaluation and criteria used in the APRCS were designed to compare alternatives using a common measure

and advance the most feasible alternatives for further study at the next level, consistent with the objectives of the

FRA Tier 1 EIS process and FTA AA process.

Alternatives Development and Evaluation

The three-level progression of analysis identified the Range

of Alternatives (Level 1 Evaluation), Conceptual Alternatives

(Level 2 Evaluation), Final Alternatives (Level 3 Evaluation),

and ultimately the Preferred Alternative including route

options (Figure 3).

Range of Alternatives

The development of the range of alternatives was the first

step in the alternatives development process. It consisted

of all reasonable routes, station locations, and modes that

were initially evaluated as part of the study. The evaluation

of the range of alternatives considered all potential route

segments, which were then combined into alternatives

consisting of a generalized alignment, stations, and mode.

The initial segments used in the range of alternatives

analysis were identified based on previous planning

initiatives and corridor studies conducted throughout the

study area, as well as input from agencies within the study

area. There were 42 separate route segments identified

based on previous studies, public and agency input, and

review of the study corridor. Individual route segments

from these previous studies were combined to form 142

potential alternatives connecting the Tucson and Phoenix

metropolitan areas. All segments are shown on Figure 4.

There were also potential station locations identified as part of the range of alternatives to inform in decisions on

potential routings. Stations were developed based on an assessment of existing and future conditions, previous

studies, and stakeholder and agency input workshops. Three different station types with varying levels of service

and infrastructure requirements, as described in detail below, were used to shape the alternative routes. Figure 5

shows all potential station locations identified throughout the study area.

• System hub stations serve as the primary core of the passenger rail corridor for both intercity and commuter

rail service. Only select locations were identified as potential system hub stations, which are typically

located in downtowns near major regional destination, and which can offer connections to other

complementary transit services including light rail, streetcar, or bus. Specific system hubs include downtown

Phoenix, Tempe/ASU, PHX Sky Harbor airport, downtown Tucson, University of Arizona, and Tucson

International Airport.

• Regional stations serve both intercity and commuter rail modes and function as major intermediate stations.

Regional stations have multiple access options, have transit-supportive land use policies, and will be

transportation gathering centers for the corridor. The location of the regional stations was determined by

considering anticipated travel characteristics and agency and public preferences related to how intercity

travel is likely to evolve over time. In general, regional stations are located at community centers within the

corridor to aid in gathering and distributing trips and at the edge of the urban areas to serve as a collector

location for trips traveling to the opposite end of the corridor.

• Local stations will be served by commuter rail service only. The function of local stations is to help move

daily trips efficiently throughout the corridor. Agencies and the public identified locations that represent the

most likely candidates to carry daily trips throughout the corridor based on where major activities are

located within each community and their proximity to the identified segments.

Initial Screening (Level 1 Evaluation)

The Initial Screening process was conducted to evaluate the potential routings, stations, and service types that

constituted the range of alternatives. The route screening focused on the potential route locations using parameters

including infringement on sensitive environments, length, potential ridership market, institutional considerations,

existing transportation uses, and compatibility with local land use plans. The screening of potential station locations

was conducted for both commuter and intercity station locations using parameters related to transportation

connections and travel markets. The measurement categories used for the route screening were (1) existing or

planned transportation use in corridor, (2) infringement upon sensitive environments, (3) compatibility with

community land use plans, (4) institutional considerations, and (5) length of possible route. Each potential routing

alternative was evaluated at a 4-mile width to allow for flexibility in addressing any issues that could arise during

later stages of work. Based on results of Initial Screening, as well as public and agency input, stations and potential

routings were combined to create seven alternatives that provide realistic opportunities for competitive highcapacity service. These alternatives connect the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas with key population and

employment centers throughout each region. They were advanced to the next stage of evaluation as Conceptual

Alternatives for more detailed analysis.

Figure 3—Evaluation Process
3

Figure 4—Range of Alternatives Route Segments Figure 5—Range of Alternatives Potential Stations
4

Initial Screening (Level 1 Evaluation)

The Initial Screening process was conducted to evaluate the potential routings, stations, and service types that

constituted the range of alternatives. The route screening focused on the potential route locations using parameters

including infringement on sensitive environments, length, potential ridership market, institutional considerations,

existing transportation uses, and compatibility with local land use plans. The screening of potential station locations

was conducted for both commuter and intercity station locations using parameters related to transportation

connections and travel markets. The measurement categories used for the route screening were (1) existing or

planned transportation use in corridor, (2) infringement upon sensitive environments, (3) compatibility with

community land use plans, (4) institutional considerations, and (5) length of possible route. Each potential routing

alternative was evaluated at a 4-mile width to allow for flexibility in addressing any issues that could arise during

later stages of work. Based on results of Initial Screening, as well as public and agency input, stations and potential

routings were combined to create seven alternatives that provide realistic opportunities for competitive highcapacity service. These alternatives connect the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas with key population and

employment centers throughout each region. They were advanced to the next stage of evaluation as Conceptual

Alternatives for more detailed analysis.

Conceptual Alternatives (Level 2 Evaluation)

The seven Conceptual Alternatives, shown on Figure 6, consist of a unique combination of route, set of stations, and

selected operating characteristics. The criteria used in the Level 2 Evaluation included measurements designed to

evaluate the route, station locations, and operating characteristics of each alternative, differentiating between the

commuter and intercity service features.

• Blue (Bus) Alternative—A bus alternative using existing HOV lanes on I-10 within Maricopa County, a new

dedicated busway on I-10 from Chandler to Tucson, as well as local arterials within downtown Phoenix and

downtown Tucson

• Green Alternative—A rail alternative using mostly I-10 rights-of-way to create the most direct route

between Phoenix and Tucson

• Orange Alternative—A rail alternative using existing and planned freeway rights-of-way to connect Phoenix

and Tucson via eastern Maricopa County and central Pinal County

• Purple Alternative—A rail alternative utilizing existing freight rail corridors, new greenfield corridors, and

I-10 rights-of-way to connect Phoenix and Tucson through Chandler and the Gila River Indian Community

(GRIC)

• Red Alternative—A rail alternative that connects the cities of Phoenix, Maricopa, and Tucson using existing

freight rail and highway corridors

• Teal Alternative—A rail alternative that would be built within both existing freight rail and planned freeway

corridors to serve Phoenix and Tucson by way of eastern Maricopa County and central Pinal County

• Yellow Alternative—A rail alternative using exclusively Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) rights-of-way or

track from downtown Phoenix to downtown Tucson, including the UP Phoenix Subdivision, UP Southeast

Branch, and UP Sunset Route from Eloy to Tucson

Figure 6—Conceptual Alternatives
All Conceptual Alternatives include western extensions in the Phoenix metropolitan area (to Surprise along the

Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) Railway on Grand Avenue and to Buckeye along the UP Wellton Branch) and to

Tucson International Airport in Tucson. These extensions do not materially influence the routing decision between

the Tucson and Phoenix areas but do represent critical linkages for commuter rail to other metropolitan areas, such

as Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The extensions are considered important elements of every Conceptual Alternative

but do not significantly influence the decision between Phoenix and Tucson.

Level 2 Evaluation Results

The Level 2 Evaluation screened the seven Conceptual Alternatives against various quantitative and qualitative

criteria within the six general measurement categories where each complete alternative encompassed several

elements, including a unique alignment, potential station areas, and operating assumptions. Table 1 shows the

general measurement category scores of each alternative, summarized into an overall assessment of each

alternative in terms ofcommunity acceptance and accessibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility,

operating characteristics, mobility,and safety. When all general measurement category scores are averaged by

alternative and ranked comparatively, the Orange Alternative scores the highest overall, the Green and Teal

Alternatives scored higher than average, the Purple Alternative received an average score, the Blue (Bus) and Red

Alternatives below average, and the Yellow Alternative scored the lowest overall.

Three inputs were considered in the evaluation of the alternatives—technical, public input, and agency input. Based

on the technical evaluation, the Orange Alternative scored the highest overall because the alternative’s operations

would have no jurisdictional issues with GRIC or UP, would face no interference from automobile or freight rail

traffic since the route avoids both I-10 and the UP corridor, and would serve many major population and

employment centers. The Green, Teal, Purple, Blue (Bus), and Red Alternatives received average overall assessments

due to mixed overall results among the general measurement categories. The Yellow Alternative scored low overall

due mainly to potential conflicts with UP operations, which limit mobility, predictability and dependability, and

safety particularly in the UP Sunset Route between Eloy and Tucson. However, the public and the agencies

expressed support for the Green, Yellow, and Orange Alternatives due to fastest travel time and ability to connect

key population centers. As the study progressed ongoing discussions with UP identified a potential reconfiguration

of the Yellow Alternative that resolved many of the potential conflicts and significantly enhanced the viability of the

route.

Table 1—Overall Level 2 Screening Results

Criteria Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

Community acceptance and accessibility

Environmental impacts

Financial feasibility

Operating characteristics

Mobility

Safety

The following Conceptual Alternatives are those eliminated from further consideration at the conclusion of the

Level 2 evaluation, along with the reasons for their elimination:

Blue Alternative—The Blue (Bus)

Alternative demonstrated significantly low

commuter demand compared to other

alternatives and would be subject to

congestion and safety issues similar to

those in automobiles, thus not offering a

real alternative to existing automobile

travel. For these reasons, the Blue (Bus)

Alternative does not meet the stated

purpose and need of the APRCS study. In

addition, the route was the least popular

with the public out of all Conceptual

Alternatives.

Purple Alternative—This corridor runs through the GRIC’s population center in Sacaton on a new Greenfield

alignment to join the Chandler Branch of UP into Phoenix. Since a large portion of the corridor passes

through GRIC land the ability to implement this alternative would be subject to a great deal of uncertainty

due to a lengthy tribal approval process, numerous high value cultural and historic resources on community

land, high potential for biological and water quality impacts on the Greenfield segments, and significant

challenges associated with displacements and obtaining ROW. The routing through GRIC land would also

have much lower ridership potential and lack connectivity to major activity and population centers

compared to other viable alternatives.

Red Alternative—The proposed corridor would use existing highway rights-of-way through GRIC land and

would also be expected to have low ridership potential due to the comparatively low number of major

population centers along the route. These limitations were reflected during the second public outreach

phase, when the public ranked the alternative the least favorable overall. In addition, the alternative would

likely face increased right-of-way costs, cultural and environmental resource challenges, and a possible

violation of highway lease agreement between GRIC and ADOT.

Figure 10 Congestion
6

Final Alternatives (Level 3 Evaluation)

The Final Alternatives were identified with consideration of the Level 2 Evaluation results, an analysis of major

conflicts or fatal flaws, public outreach, and coordination with partner agencies throughout the study area. The

Level 3 Evaluation consisted of a more refined and detailed analysis of the Final Alternatives, culminating in the

selection of the preferred alternative.

After considering the results of the Level 2 Evaluation, stakeholder input, and the presence of fatal flaws, the Teal

Alternative was initially selected as a Final Alternative. However, further investigations of the alternatives resulted in

the determination that the Teal Alternative would not be further evaluated as part of the Level 3 Evaluation.

• Teal Alternative—With the reconfiguration of the Yellow and Orange Alternatives to include common

corridors from downtown Phoenix to Tempe, and Eloy to Tucson, the route assumed by the Teal Alternative

would consist almost entirely of portions of the Yellow and Orange alternatives. For this reason, further

analysis of Teal as an independent alternative was deemed unnecessary, as the vast majority of the

alternative route would be technically evaluated in the Level 3 Evaluation as part of either the Yellow or

Orange Alternatives.

The following Conceptual Alternatives were identified as the Final Alternatives for Level 3 Evaluation as they would

best meet the purpose of and need for the project and provide the highest potential for successful implementation.

However, the routes and station locations of each Final Alternative were refined from earlier alternative definitions

as described below.

• Green Alternative—The updated Green Alternative still uses mostly I-10 right-of-way. However, the refined

route would follow UP right-of-way from Phoenix into downtown Tempe and the UP Tempe Branch right-ofway south from Tempe to meet I-10. Within Tucson, the route would follow UP right-of-way from I-10 to the

southern System Hub station.

• Orange Alternative—This route would also use UP right-of-way near the Phoenix and Tucson downtown

areas as well as the SR 202L Red Mountain Freeway, SR 101 Pima Freeway, US 60 Superstition Freeway,

Ellsworth Road, planned North-South multimodal corridor, an exclusive transit corridor planned in the

proposed Superstition Vistas development, and I-10 rights-of-way. The northern portion of the route is

assumed to be constructed using an elevated guideway between north Tempe and Phoenix Mesa Gateway

Airport.

• Yellow Alternative—UP expressed major concerns about shared passenger service on the UP Sunset Route

in the southern portion of the corridor between Tucson and Eloy, which resulted in the reconfiguration of

the corridor. The redefined alternative assumed use of the UP Phoenix subdivision corridor north of Eloy and

the I-10 corridor from Eloy to Tucson.

All Final Alternatives share several common corridors, within which both the Green, Yellow, and Orange routes

would utilize the same general routes (Figure 8). These sections include the UP Phoenix subdivision right-of-way

between downtown Phoenix and Tempe, I-10 right-of-way between Eloy and Tucson, and UP right-of-way in

Tucson. In addition, both Final Alternatives include extensions into the West Valley in the Phoenix metropolitan

area (to Surprise along the BNSF Railway line on Grand Avenue and to Buckeye along the UP Wellton Branch and

to the Tucson International Airport south from downtown Tucson along the UP Nogales Branch).

Figure 8—Final Alternatives
Level 3 Evaluation Results

The Level 3 Evaluation screened the Final Alternatives against various quantitative and qualitative criteria within the

general measurement categories. The Green Alternative was initially selected and presented to the public as a Final

Alternative. However, ongoing discussions with GRIC staff and officials resulted in the removal of the alternative

from further consideration at the onset of the Level 3 technical analysis.

Green Alternative—Once the route was further defined for Level 3 consideration and some of the potential

issues were identified, extensive discussions were begun with GRIC to assess the level of concern about

possible layouts within the community. A major portion of the alternative assumed the widening of the

existing I-10 easement through the jurisdiction of GRIC. More refined analysis of the corridor, and

coordination with GRIC cultural resources staff, indicated that the widening of I-10 would require additional

Tribal land and have undesirable effects on Tribal cultural and historic resources. The introduction of a new

mode, such as rail, in the I-10 corridor would also be incompatible with existing agreements between ADOT

and GRIC for transportation in the corridor. The removal of the Green Alternative from the study was

accepted by the GRIC Tribal Council, with the understanding that complementary transit connections to

GRIC would be included as part of the preferred alternative.

Based on this determination and ruling by the GRIC Tribal Council, only the Final Yellow and Orange Alternatives

(Figure 9) were screened as part of the Level 3 Evaluation and analyzed as part of the companion Tier 1 EIS

document. Table 2 shows the general measurement category scores of each alternative, summarized into an overall

assessment of each alternative in terms of community acceptance and accessibility, environmental impacts, financial

feasibility, ease of implementation, operating characteristics, mobility, and safety. When all measurement category

scores are evaluated, the Yellow Alternative ranks higher than the Orange Alternative. The Yellow Alternative scored

the highest overall because it provides access to existing population and employment centers, has lower capital and

operating costs, and has fewer environmental impacts. The Orange Alternative has significantly higher costs and

lower anticipated ridership. The Yellow Alternative would require close coordination with UP, but design and

operations assumptions at this level would allow enough flexibility for potential conflicts to be mitigated.

Table 2—Overall Level 3 Screening Results

Criteria Orange Yellow

Community acceptance and accessibility

Environmental impacts

Financial feasibility

Ease of Implementation

Operating characteristics

Mobility

Safety

highest ranking

 = lowest ranking

Figure 9—Final Orange and Yellow Alternatives
8

Preferred Alternative

A preferred alternative was determined based on the technical analysis presented in the AA, as well as agency and

public input. Based on the Level 3 Evaluation, which provided a technical overview of each Final Alternative, the

Yellow Alternative was the best performing alternative overall within five of the seven evaluation categories.

However, several potential historic and cultural resource issues were identified within route segments of the Yellow

Alternative based on analyses performed throughout the AA and major concerns expressed by stakeholders during

the agency outreach process. These resources may be subject to protection of Section 4(f)

1

 of the U.S.

Transportation Act which prevents impacts to these properties unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative. A

determination regarding whether properties protected by Section 4(f) will be impacted by the Yellow Alternative

would require a much more extensive and detailed analysis than is included in the scope of this study. Although

Yellow remains the Preferred Alternative for these unresolved portions of the Corridor; the option of using the

Orange Alternative in these segments has been retained as a potential prudent and feasible alternative to impacting

properties protected by Section 4(f). It is important to note that the optional segments of the Orange Alternative

may also have properties protected by Section 4(f) that may require extensive analysis to make a decision regarding

a final alternative. The preferred Yellow Alternative, with routing options, is shown on Figure 10.

Route Options Carried Forward

Optional routings are considered as potential solutions for issues identified along the Yellow Alternative. They could

be beneficial in identifying a Preferred Alternative in the Final Tier I EIS if the primary Yellow Alternative route

proves to be flawed. These re-routings are presented as options based on a high-level assessment of viability and

potential conflicts. • Tempe Option— The locally preferred Yellow Alternative includes an optional routing through Tempe

because of the potential impact on historic properties adjacent to UP tracks. The optional routing would use

the portion of the Orange Alternative that follows SR 101L Pima and SR 202L Red Mountain freeway rightsof-way. It is shown as an inset on Figure 10.

• Pinal County Option— Figure 10 also shows a second optional routing for the Yellow Alternative in Pinal

County. Should the use of UP property not be feasible, this option would potentially utilize the portion of

the Orange Alternative that extends from Copper Basin Railroad along the planned multimodal North-South

Corridor to I-10 as described above in the discussion of the Teal Alternative under Final Alternatives.

In consideration of the technical evaluation results, public opinion gleaned from outreach results, and preferences

and concerns shared by agency stakeholders throughout the study area, the Yellow Alternative was ultimately

selected as the preferred alternative of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study—Tucson to Phoenix Alternatives

Analysis.

1

 Section 4(f) refers to section of U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requiring consideration of adverse impacts to park and

recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. Section 4(f) properties which could

be adversely impacted by a transportation project require supplemental evaluation and must be avoided if prudent and practical alternatives

exist.
9

Figure 10—Preferred Yellow Alternative
10

1.0 Introduction and Study Purpose

ADOT, in conjunction with FRA and FTA, is evaluating alternatives for high-capacity passenger service connecting the

Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas to provide for existing and future local and regional travel demands. This

AA, part of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study (APRCS), is complemented by the development of an

environmental document in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), FRA procedural

requirements, and FTA guidance for environmental review. In addition to this AA, the final study products will

include a Tier I EIS and a Service Development Plan (SDP), which will identify the broad range of effects on the

environment and a conceptual operations plan. This AA document has been prepared to address FRA, as well as FTA,

requirements and will be used as a basis for the Tier I EIS and SDP.

The AA describes the project purpose, the initial range of alternatives proposed for consideration, the methodology

used to evaluate the alternatives, and the results of the evaluation leading to the selection of a preferred

alternative. A three-step process was used to evaluate alternatives to identify a final alternative, including

preliminary service planning elements, which will be considered in the Tier I EIS and be further developed in the

SDP.

The Tier I EIS is a separate document being prepared in compliance with NEPA, evaluating potential impacts of the

final alternatives that have been carried forward in the screening process for detailed analysis and comparison.

Ultimately, ADOT, FRA, and FTA will select one preferred alternative based on the detailed technical analysis

included in the Tier I EIS and input from impacted agencies and the public.

The SDP will provide a conceptual operations plan associated with the preferred alternative. The SDP will include a

potential operating plan (trip patterns, schedules, etc.), capital plan (vehicles, guideway, stations, etc.), cost

estimates, and ridership projections. In addition, the SDP includes implementation considerations, such as a project

management plan, financial plan, maintenance plan, and risk assessment.

The final documentation of the APRCS process is intended to be a combination of reports that include the AA, the

Tier I EIS, and the SDP. This approach is designed to avoid duplication of information in multiple documents that

have major technical overlap.

1.1 Study Area

The APRCS corridor includes about three-quarters of the state’s population, extending from the Tucson to the

Phoenix metropolitan areas—the two largest metropolitan areas in Arizona. The two metropolitan areas are

separated by a distance of approximately 120 miles across three counties: Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa. The study

area, shown on Figure 11, is considered to be the entirety of all three counties though the focus is on the most

active portions of the study area—between the two metropolitan areas, also referred to as the Sun Corridor. In the

evaluation conducted in this study and documented in this AA, each route alternative evaluated was contained

entirely within the study area.

Figure 11—Study Area
11

1.2 Goals and Objectives

The intent of the APRCS is to provide a new travel option that can provide reliable, safe, and efficient service

complementing the highway program while providing access to employment opportunities and activity centers

within the study area. The primary APRCS project goals and objectives are:

• Goal 1—Manage future congestion

 Objective 1.1—Identify an alternative that will avoid or alleviate highway congestion

 Objective 1.2—Add significant new capacity to the corridor above the currently programmed highway

construction program

• Goal 2—Provide an alternative mode of travel

 Objective 2.1—Develop transportation system options that offer an alternative to the current singlemode travel option

 Objective 2.2—Reduce the impact of transportation improvements on the built and natural

environments

• Goal 3—Provide a reliable mode of travel

 Objective 3.1—Identify an option that provides a more reliable alternative to current transportation

mode

 Objective 3.2—Identify a travel option that can operate on a published, predictable, and reliable

schedule

• Goal 4—Provide a safe mode of travel

 Objective 4.1—Reduce overall exposure to highway collisions in the corridor

 Objective 4.2—Minimize the effects of weather, such as dust storms, on travel within the corridor

• Goal 5—Provide a fast and efficient mode of travel

 Objective 5.1—Establish a balance between speed and access, but ensure a competitive travel time with

the automobile

• Goal 6—Provide a mode that will support future travel needs

 Objective 6.1—Provide access and mobility to existing and emerging communities within the corridor

 Objective 6.2—Identify the specific requirements of commuter versus intercity travel and develop plans

to meet both

 Objective 6.3—Establish compatibility with future regional plans for travel to neighboring states and

metropolitan areas

These goals and objectives served as a basis for developing the Purpose and Need required under NEPA in preparing

the environmental documentation for the project. They also influenced the evaluation methodology used in

developing the alternatives in this AA.

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 Study Background

The State of Arizona has completed a number of studies in recent years to better understand and address the

demands of its rapidly growing population and the associated demands on the State’s transportation system.

Statewide efforts, such as bqAZ, the State Rail Plan, and regional efforts such as the Maricopa Association of

Government (MAG) Commuter Rail System Study, Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2040 Regional

Transportation Plan (RTP), and Pinal County Comprehensive Plan provide a foundation for a multimodal and

sustainable transportation future. The development of these plans, and others, engaged the entire state in

identifying transportation needs. They all contribute to identifying solutions for the anticipated demand and the

best ways to meet those needs. The APRCS builds on these previous plans and proposes mobility concepts to create

and evaluate commuter and intercity opportunities in the Sun Corridor, which is the first step toward the

implementation of these plans.

The study corridor has been assessed on a number of occasions. The results are consistently focused on the need for

increased capacity and alternative modes to support anticipated changes within the corridor. Previous and

concurrent studies, performed by ADOT and other agencies within the study area, identified the planned growth and

need for additional transportation facilities and evaluated or recommended specific transportation solutions. The

relevant studies are listed with key elements highlighted in Table 3, and represent the basis for the preliminary work

performed on the APRCS. The timeline of these studies indicates the long history of growth and transportation

facility planning within the area, directly leading to the APRCS study.

Figure 12—Previous Statewide Studies
12

Table 3—Relevant Projects

Year Project Relevance

2003 MAG High

Capacity Transit

Study

This study recommended an integrated system of high-capacity transit corridors providing efficient and

convenient travel throughout the MAG region. This long-range study considered projected travel demand

in the MAG region to 2040, when the population was expected to exceed 7 million residents. The study

focused on commuter rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), and light rail transit (LRT), ultimately recommending

commuter rail connections from Phoenix to Surprise, Buckeye, and Queen Creek, including a connection

to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport and a BRT/LRT alignment in the City of Chandler.

2006 Pinal County

Corridor Definition

Study

This study expanded on recommendations of the Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County

Transportation Study. The study had two components—the East Valley Corridor and the Apache

Junction/Coolidge Corridor. The East Valley Corridor could parallel or overlap Hunt Highway along the

southern boundary of Maricopa County, and extend from I-10 to US 60 in Pinal County. The Apache

Junction/Coolidge Corridor begins at I-10 south of Coolidge and could follow SR 87 north to US 60. The

study identified a north-south corridor connecting I-10 with US 60, approximately 36 miles in length,

which will provide an alternative to I-10 in the future.

Superstition Vistas

Scenarios Report

This was the result of a visioning process for a 275-square-mile tract of State Trust Land in north-central

Pinal County. The report outlined three feasible alternative futures for the area, with the end goal of the

project to establish a master plan for future development, including the identification of activity centers

and future transportation corridors.

2007 Pinal County

Comprehensive

Plan Smart

Growth Concept

and Open Space &

Trails Master Plan

To position Pinal County as a leader in environmental stewardship, the Plan places high emphasis on

intergovernmental and interagency collaboration for promoting sustainable practices. Examples include

innovative land use planning, sustainable agriculture, open space preservation, water conservation, green

building development, and the use of renewable and alternative energy resources. The vision laid out in

the plan addresses many important elements that should be applied to the entire Sun Corridor outside

Pinal County. For example, the region as a whole would benefit from coordinating with public and private

partners to create viable economic development centers, directing development toward communities

with existing infrastructure and resources and conserving open space and natural resources on the urban

fringe.

2008 MAG Commuter

Rail Strategic Plan

This plan provides a framework for how commuter rail could be implemented throughout the MAG region

and in northern Pinal County. The study area was separated into five “subareas” that are focused on and

around existing rail lines. A large amount of the employment growth is occurring or will occur in the

central business district (CBD) of Phoenix, resulting in the need for commuters to travel to the CBD from

outlying communities, with existing roadway capacity unable to serve future demand without substantial

improvements. The Plan examines how commuter rail can serve these growing outlying communities

operating on existing freight railroad lines and future extensions. Recommendations from this study were

a stepping stone for the 2010 Commuter Rail System Study.

2009 MAG Regional

Transit

Framework

This study identified regional public transportation needs for Maricopa County through to year 2030.

Transit service and capital investment concepts presented in the study were derived from a

comprehensive analysis of regional transit needs and deficiencies. The three alternative transit scenarios,

which include new or expanded bus service, high-capacity transit all-day (e.g., LRT and BRT) and highcapacity transit peak-period (e.g. commuter rail, dedicated guideway BRT), were developed to meet

different transit system objectives and financial constraints.

2010 MAG Commuter

Rail System Study

This study provided a detailed evaluation of the recommendations from the 2008 Commuter Rail System

Plan for a system of commuter rail corridors that extend from downtown Phoenix to the northwest, west,

and south/southeast within the MAG region and northern Pinal County. This study addresses the

increasing future travel demand and provides options for a faster and more reliable travel alternative to

downtown Phoenix. The study found that the most viable commuter rail network yielding the highest

ridership would be connecting the southeast valley and the northwest valley through downtown Phoenix.

2010 ADOT Building a

Quality Arizona—

Statewide

Transportation

Planning

Framework

This was a long-term, statewide transportation plan to establish a long-range vision considering all surface

modes on equal footing; to include city, county, and state systems; and to fully integrate principles of

Smart Growth, environmental stewardship, responsible economic growth, and tribal participation. A

series of alternative future transportation scenarios was formulated, evaluated, and prioritized to create a

statewide comprehensive multimodal recommendation. The recommended framework is a 40-year vision

for the future, not only including a series of multimodal transportation improvements, but also policies

and programs to support climate change mitigation, responsible urban form, environmental stewardship,

economic vitality, and safety and security.

Year Project Relevance

2010 PAG Regional

Transportation

Plan

This plan addresses transportation needs within the PAG planning area, including public transportation,

special services, and a potential high-speed rail system through the Sun Corridor. The primary goal of the

RTP was to prioritize public transportation investments. Examples of current and future transportation

planning efforts intended to maintain and improve the current public transportation system included:

 Regional Comprehensive Transit Operations Analysis Study—Conduct a comprehensive operations

analysis study of the entire regional transit system every five years.

 Sun Trans Bus and Support Vehicle Replacements—Purchase 15 buses every year and replace support

vehicles as needed.

 Transit Center Updates—Rehabilitate and update existing regional transit centers, including ITS

upgrades, building repairs, bus circulation, and access repairs and general cosmetic improvements.

 Paratransit Service Expansion—Expand paratransit services to serve more clients over a greater

geographic area.

Rail from Tucson to Phoenix was the most supported project by the public during the development of the

RTP.

2011 ADOT I-10

Corridor Study,

Design Concept

Report (DCR) and

Environmental

Assessment (EA)—

Junction I-8 to

Tangerine Road

The purpose of this study is to prepare a DCR and long-range implementation plan for I-10 from the

junction with I-8 to Tangerine Road to accommodate projected travel demands, provide an acceptable

level of service, and address access and geometric deficiencies in the project corridor. The proposed

project will increase the roadway capacity and improve operational efficiency of this portion of I-10 by

providing a 10-lane divided interstate highway, with continuous parallel one-way frontage roads, and

reconstruction or relocation of the existing traffic interchanges. The proposed project also includes the

development of a new traffic interchange at Selma Highway and provision for the future development of

new traffic interchanges by entities other than ADOT should conditions warrant.

2011 ADOT Arizona

State Rail Plan

This plan included several statewide goals and objectives for rail, which consist of:

 Improving mobility and accessibility

 Supporting economic growth

 Promoting sustainable transportation and land use coordination

 Preserving the environment and natural and cultural resources

 Providing safety and security

The plan recommends the exploration of four rail corridor strategies, including:

 Arizona Spine—A north-to-south corridor through the central part of the state which focuses on

passenger rail opportunities.

 CANAMEX—A corridor which spans from Las Vegas to the Mexican border that focuses on establishing a

Southwestern High Speed Rail Network.

 Route 66—An east-to-west corridor that contains the BNSF Transcon Corridor and I-40. This corridor

focus is on network enhancement to move people and freight within northern Arizona and across the

country.

 Sunset—An east to west corridor containing the Union Pacific Sunset Corridor, I-8, and I-10. This

corridor focus is also on network enhancements to move people and freight within southern Arizona

and across the country.

2012 MAG Sustainable

Transportation

and Land Use

Integration Study

This study examined transit investment concepts in the MAG region to advance sustainable transportation

in ways that reflect market reality, recognize the high cost of high-capacity transit, and are consistent with

the values and aspirations of member communities. The study established examples of a range of transit

supportive “place types” that could be used as guidance in future planning efforts—compact walkable,

transit served, and high-capacity transit oriented. Study recommendations identified strategies to

improve transportation mobility through increased transit ridership and to enhance economic

opportunities through public and private investments around transit station areas.

Ongoing ADOT North-South

Corridor Study

EIS/DCR

ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration, as the lead federal agency, have initiated an environmental impact statement (EIS) and DCR to identify a transportation corridor to connect US 60 and I-10. The

proposed North-South Corridor Study area begins at US 60, in the vicinity of Apache Junction, and extends

south for approximately 45 miles to connect to I-10, in the vicinity of Eloy and Picacho in Pinal County. By

January 2011, the study team divided the study area into 16 segments with the intent of developing

potential alignments that would support multimodal transportation options. As the alignments are

developed, documentation of existing environmental conditions and potential impacts from the introduction of a new transportation facility will be compiled for agency and public comment in the Draft EIS.
13

Figure 13—Previous Regional Studies

1.3.2 Scoping, Public, and Agency Outreach

For this study, project scoping was conducted early in the analysis to help define project need. The process provided

opportunities for all interested parties to share their views and the opportunity for the study team to refine its focus

to specifically address the needs and expectations of the Sun Corridor. In addition to the extensive scoping outreach

conducted, two phases of public participation, which included extensive communication with stakeholders and the

public throughout the corridor, were held during the preparation of the AA and leading to the identification of the

alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Tier I EIS. The outreach programs were held in fall of 2012 and spring of 2014

at public venues in conjunction with scheduled events in communities

within the corridor.

Corridor-wide community status updates were held at public events

and with public and environmental resource agency staffs as the

alternatives were refined and less effective options were eliminated.

Since March 2011, over 10,000 project preference surveys have been

completed by members of the public, both in person and through the

project website. These have led to a better understanding of what

individuals within the corridor communities believe is important and

which alternatives best meet those expectations.

The study team received comments from a wide range of interested

parties, including public agencies, tribal communities, community

leaders, businesses, residents, employees, and students in a dialogue

about transportation options that has been unfolding for decades.

Building on input received during the development of bqAZ and the

What Moves You Arizona - Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP),

ADOT has consistently heard that its customers view public

transportation options as a need and priority. Scoping participants expressed a desire for both commuter and

intercity service. In both agency and public scoping, many participants independently suggested interlining intercity

and commuter service to utilize one corridor with different operating characteristics.

Government agencies that have an interest in the study have been actively engaged. These agencies were sent

scoping information and requests to become participating and cooperating agencies during the process. Feedback

was solicited from the following through direct contact:

• Elected officials

• Governmental agencies and stakeholders

• Interested organizations

• Community groups

As part of the study process, three Corridor Support Team (CST) meetings were held at key points to gain input from

stakeholders and help guide the study. These meetings provided opportunity for participating agencies to provide

input into the study process.

1.3.3 Need

Between 1990 and 2010, the combined population of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties increased by over

78 percent, from 2.9 million to nearly 5.2 million, with an over 61-percent increase between 1991 and 2010 in the

number of nonfarm jobs. This three-county study area forms part of a clustered network of cities—a “megaregion”—known informally as the “Sun Corridor.” A look at travel patterns, available transit services, and trip times

shows that the need to move people from one place to another is also growing. Based on population and travel

forecasts, and the amount of available open land within the corridor, travel markets are expected to continue to

grow in the future; however, opportunities to increase the carrying capacity of the region’s roadway network are

limited.

The Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas will

continue to be major population and employment

centers within the region. Most of Arizona’s

developable land is situated between these cities,

and development of this area is projected to form a

continuous urban corridor connecting the

metropolitan areas. With Arizona on a steady

economic upswing after experiencing a downturn in

the second half of the last decade, the increasing

development in the corridor will contribute to a

need for increased commuter and intercity mobility

within the corridor, which will have to be

addressed.

Travel between Tucson and Phoenix currently takes

place almost entirely on I-10, the only high-capacity

freeway between the two cities. Travel along this highway is affected by increasing congestion. Based on forecasts

from studies conducted within this corridor, even a planned widening of the existing I-10 freeway to 10 lanes not

Figure 14—Public Outreach Figure 15—Suburban Growth, Phoenix Metropolitan Area
14

provide adequate capacity to meet the expected demand. In addition, the construction of a new planned freeway as

part of the ADOT North-South Corridor Study is also not anticipated to substantially reduce future congestion. As

western Pinal County continues to be developed, traffic congestion on area highways will cause an increase in travel

times within the study area.

Available transportation choices between Phoenix and Tucson are currently limited to private automobile, common

carrier (bus), commercial flights, and ridesharing, with most travelers—commuter, regional, and intercity—using

I-10. Despite recent widening of sections of the freeway within the study area, I-10 experiences severe congestion

and increasing frequency and duration of traffic jams.

The I-10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix experiences seasonal dust storms. In recent years, some of these

storms have impaired roadway visibility beyond the limits of safe travel, resulting in traffic shutdowns, multivehicle

accidents, and fatalities on numerous occasions. The growing demand placed on I-10 as the primary intercity route

in the corridor—and the resulting congestion—will increase the likelihood of traffic collisions, which will further

reduce the overall effectiveness and reliability of I-10 to serve commuter and intercity travel needs.

Increasing capacity by adding lanes to this highway cannot be done in some sections due to limited rights-of-way,

and adding lanes may not be the best solution to address the anticipated demand. An alternative transportation

mode, such as passenger rail, could help meet the demand of existing and future travel markets by providing

additional transportation capacity that would help serve the increasing travel demand and not be affected by

unpredictable highway conditions.

Given the current travel demand and projected

growth, there is a clearly demonstrated need in the

corridor for major transportation improvements to

address existing and anticipated unpredictability and

inefficiency in the transportation system as well as

limitations in modal choice of travel and future

system capacity deficiencies. Specifically, as the

region evolves, there will be explicit and overlapping

commuter and intercity needs as defined below.

• Commuter need—Demand for commuter

services, where most travelers make

same-day round trips, exists within the

Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. Demand is

expected to grow in the future, as

population growth in the service area is projected to remain high over the next few decades. The average

journey to work within the study area has grown longer as residential development has spread from the

major cities to outlying areas and as population growth has increased traffic congestion. As development in

Pinal County proceeds, commuter activity will continue to expand in the areas between Phoenix and Tucson,

with major daily commutes taking place between Pinal County and neighboring Maricopa and Pima

Counties.

• Intercity need—Travel between cities in the Sun Corridor for non-work purposes also accounts for many

trips. As population and travel demand grow, intercity travel by auto and air will suffer from increasing

congestion and time delays—especially in metropolitan areas, at and around airports, and on weekends and

holidays. This decline in transportation service and the quality of the travel experience adversely affects

intercity travelers, other users of the system, commercial carriers, and the general public.

• Commuter and intercity common need—During the scoping process, respondents expressed a desire for

both commuter and intercity service. In both agency and public scoping, many participants independently

suggested co-locating intercity and commuter service (express and local) to utilize one corridor with multiple

operating plans.

1.3.4 Purpose

This project focuses on intercity and commuter mobility between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas,

generally referred to as the Sun Corridor, which includes Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties. The purpose of the

project is to examine various means of implementing a high-capacity facility that would serve both intercity and

commuter needs together. The project purpose is to:

• Investigate ways to reduce the rate of growth in congestion and divert highway trips within the

Tucson-to-Phoenix travel corridor

• Increase access to existing and planned employment and activity centers within the three-county study area

• Provide reliable travel times and safe travel within an increasingly congested region that currently affords

few transportation alternatives to the private automobile

• Recommend a viable route and travel mode to connect the suburban and rural areas between Tucson and

Phoenix

• Facilitate continued development of a comprehensive, multimodal, and interconnected regional and

multiregional transportation network that provides mobility choices for existing and future needs and allows

connectivity to systems beyond the Tucson-to- Phoenix corridor

The project purpose was formulated with support from participants in the public and agency scoping meetings, with

particular emphasis on improving mobility and regional connectivity throughout Arizona and the Western U.S. There

was a demonstrated understanding among the scoping participants that providing transportation options and

improving mobility throughout the study area as the area grows will benefit economic development of the region.

Figure 16—Dust Storm on I-10

Source: Arizona Republic
15

1.3.5 Population and Employment Estimate

By 2035, the area between Tucson and Phoenix will be characterized by dense employment and population centers

in and around the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas and substantial population and employment centers

throughout Pinal County. Forecast population and employment changes in the Sun Corridor are presented in Table 4

and Table 5.

Table 4—Estimated Population Change

County 2010

Population

2035

Population % Change

Pima 956,000 1,277,000 + 40%

Pinal 349,700 729,000 + 108%

Maricopa 3,760,000 5,680,000 + 51%

Sources: State of Arizona Office of Employment and Population Statistics

Table 5—Estimated Employment Change

County 2010

Employment

2035

Employment % Change

Pima 337,000 472,600 + 40%

Pinal 52,000 244,000 + 371%

Maricopa 1,598,000 2,637,000 + 65%

 Sources: ADOT Risk Analysis Process growth rates, MPO growth forecasts

1.3.6 Current Transportation Modes

The only transportation modes available for travel between Tucson

and Phoenix are private auto, common carrier bus, air service, and

ridesharing. The majority of commuter, regional, and intercity

travel utilizes I-10, the only major roadway connecting the two

metropolitan areas. Private auto is the most commonly used mode

of travel.

1.3.7 Mobility and Travel Time

Mobility between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas is

negatively impacted by growing congestion within the I-10 corridor.

Despite recent widening of sections of I-10 in the study area,

increasing durations of severe congestion occur frequently and are

expected to worsen as the population and employment in the

corridor grow. Future expansion of I-10 and the construction of the

potential North-South corridor are expected to be insufficient to

accommodate forecasted travel demand in the corridor based on

travel projections. The proposed North-South freeway is currently

under study by ADOT, and would connect Apache Junction to Eloy

in central Pinal County (Figure 17). The duration of a trip from

Tucson to Phoenix—which now takes approximately 113 minutes in

a private auto under free-flow conditions—would increase to over 142 minutes in 2035 and 180 minutes by 2050.

2

Scoping comments indicated general concern about mobility within the corridor, primarily focusing on reliability,

safety, and overall travel time as the travel demand increases.

1.3.8 Intercity and Commuter Demand

With the increase in population and employment throughout the region, the intercity and commuter travel demand

between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas is anticipated to grow significantly. Twenty- two percent of the

daily vehicle traffic on I-10 and SR 79 is by travelers who complete a commute-type trip, with the same vehicle

coming in at a given location and going out at the same location.3 From 2006 to 2008, daily inter-county commute

trips within the three counties exceeded 75,000, as detailed in Table 6.4

Table 6—Estimated Daily Inter- and Intra-county Commute Trips

From To # Inter-county

Commute Trips

% Inter-county

Commute Trips

Pima Pinal 1,810 2%

Pinal Pima 3,740 5%

Pima Maricopa 2,260 3%

Maricopa Pima 2,980 4%

Pinal Maricopa 51,625 68%

Maricopa Pinal 13,265 18%

From To # Intra-county

Commute Trips

NW Maricopa Phoenix CBD 22,473

NE Maricopa Phoenix CBD 64,249

SE Maricopa Phoenix CBD 180,242

SW Maricopa Phoenix CBD 16,660

North Pima County Tucson CBD 31,034

South Pima County Tucson CBD 19,467

Source: Census Transportation Planning Package 2006-2010 (CTPP)

As the Sun Corridor grows and Pinal County reaches its build-out (expected to be around 2050), commuter activity

will increase, with significant trip interchanges between Pinal and Maricopa and between Pima and Pinal Counties.

Travel markets that will need to be served by commuter services will include:

• Phoenix and suburban communities extending into Pinal County

• Tucson and suburban communities extending into Pinal County

• Activity centers in Pinal County and the Phoenix metropolitan area

• Activity centers in Pinal County and the Tucson metropolitan area

2 The future condition assumes I-10 has been fully widened to ten lanes and the North-South Corridor is built linking Apache Junction to I-10

through central Pinal County. Source: Arizona-Travel Demand Model, version 2 (AZTDM2)

3 MAG and PAG photo license plate survey of highway vehicles (automobiles, trucks, etc.), 2008

4 Census Transportation Planning Package 2006-2008 (CTPP)

Figure 17—North-South Corridor Study Area
16

Travel between cities in the Sun Corridor mega region (Figure 18) accounts for many trips. As population and travel

demand grow, intercity travel by auto and air will suffer from increasing congestion and time delays—especially in

metropolitan areas, at and around airports, and on weekends and holidays. This decline in transportation service

and the quality of the travel experience adversely affects intercity travelers, other users of the system, commercial

carriers, and the general public.

Effectively, the entire corridor under study will ultimately need to address both commuter and intercity needs,

which will require a hybrid service involving both local and express travel options.

Figure 18—U.S. Emerging Megaregions
17

2.0 Alternatives Analysis Methodology

The APRCS used a three-level process to formulate, evaluate, and refine the potential mode, routing, and system

hub and station locations within the Tucson-to-Phoenix corridor. Each step in the process was more increasingly

comprehensive, refining the evaluation criteria to assess each remaining alternative at a higher level of detail than

the previous step. This section describes the process used to develop and evaluate alternatives.

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation methodology and criteria used in the three-level analysis were developed to be compatible with

typical FRA and FTA evaluation methodology requirements. The process for an FRA Tier 1 EIS includes assessing

beneficial and adverse environmental effects associated with a reasonable range of alternatives. The methodology

and criteria for the FTA AA process require analyzing reasonable and promising alternatives based on a range of

measures designed to understand each alternative’s financial feasibility and potential fatal flaws. The three levels of

evaluation and criteria used in the APRCS were designed to compare alternatives using a common yardstick and

advance the most feasible alternatives for further study at the next level, consistent with the objectives of the FRA

Tier 1 EIS and FTA AA processes.

2.1.1 Prior Studies

Routings evaluated in this study were based on efforts of the previous studies, detailed in Section 1.3.1, which

include statewide transportation plans by ADOT, major corridor studies, transit studies and regional transportation

programs of MAG, PAG, and Pinal County. The potential routes identified in prior studies, shown on Figure 19,

included the use of existing and planned transportation corridors.

Figure 19—Corridors Identified in Prior Studies
18

2.1.2 Three-Level Technical Evaluation

The three-level evaluation used to screen the alternatives consisted of an Initial Screening, Level 2 Evaluation, and

Level 3 Evaluation, as described in detail below and illustrated on Figure 20.

• Initial Screening—The first level of evaluation was designed to identify a viable list of Conceptual

Alternatives from the initial range or universe of choices, which are based on the previous study corridors

presented on Figure 19. This step was intended to include the broad array of possibilities to connect Tucson

and Phoenix. The intent was to address all reasonable alternatives for the preferred alternative. At this level,

the analysis included evaluating the individual components that make up the alternatives—corridor/route

segments, system hub locations, and modal options. The alternatives were screened based on the presence

of fatal flaws, which for the purposes of this study were considered any major conflict to the development

of an alternative that would eliminate that alternative as a viable option. In addition, alternatives were also

evaluated using high level technical criteria defined in this and past studies, input from scoping, and

commonly accepted industry practices for assessing transportation options.

• Level 2 Evaluation—The Initial Screening resulted in the selection of seven Conceptual Alternatives. The

second level of evaluation consisted of screening each Conceptual Alternative advanced from the Initial

Screening based on a prescribed set of evaluation criteria. Each complete Conceptual Alternative consisted

of several elements, including a corridor routing, potential station locations, and basic operating assumptions. The alternatives were evaluated based on more refined criteria and applied within a more confined

corridor to narrow choices within the context of a potential alignment. This step resulted in a set of Final

Alternatives. These are the alternatives reviewed in the Tier I EIS.

• Level 3 Evaluation—The Preferred Alternative will be selected from the Final Alternatives identified in the

Level 2 Evaluation. The higher level of detail at this level was developed to ensure a more comprehensive

identification of impacts, opportunities, costs, travel demand, and preliminary operating characteristics for

each alternative so they present an in-depth understanding of the effects of the project under NEPA

requirements for the Tier 1 EIS.

Figure 20—Evaluation Process
19

2.1.3 Analysis Categories

Six evaluation categories, defined below, were identified based on technical assessment requirements and

preferences and priorities indicated by the public and agencies during the scoping process. These were used across

the three levels of evaluation, within which progressively more detailed criteria were applied over the course of the

evaluation process.

• Community acceptance and accessibility—Compatibility of an alternative with local development plans and

public response, compatibility with underlying property ownership, station area transit-supportive urban

design potential, and populations served

• Environment—Effect of the project alternative on the environment, including the effect on sensitive species

or habitat, cultural resources, and air quality

• Financial feasibility—Cost to build and operate the alternative, cost effectiveness, rights-of-way, operating

costs, and ease of implementation

• Operating characteristics—High-level assessment of the anticipated reliability, predictability, and

dependability of a corridor depending on other transportation modes or weather conditions

• Mobility—Ridership potential, multimodal connectivity, and overall travel time and travel performance

within the corridor.

• Safety—A valuation of the anticipated safety of each alternative based on possible automobile conflict

points and each alternative’s potential ability to decrease automobile related fatalities

Each of these categories was used throughout the AA in evaluating each alternative, with progressively more

detailed criteria as the alternatives become more refined. For the third and final Level 3 Evaluation, the “ease of

implementation” criterion is considered as a separate measurement category. This determination was made since

Level 3 represents the final alternative screening prior to determination of the preferred alternative and the ease of

the eventual implementation of the preferred alternative holds greater significance at that stage of evaluation.

2.1.4 Public and Agency Outreach

A robust public and agency outreach program was conducted concurrently to the technical evaluation of corridor

alternatives. This effort included extensive project scoping, as well as two additional outreach phases to help

develop and refine the range of alternatives and to inform technical analyses and decisions leading to a preferred

alternative.

• Project and agency scoping—Input during the initial phases of the study was obtained during three CST

workshops attended by representatives from agencies within the study area in summer 2011, twelve public

scoping events held throughout the study area in fall 2011, and comments submitted through the ADOT

project website (www.azdot.gov/passengerrail). Information gathered during the scoping process helped to

define the project purpose and need, to supplement and refine possible routes included in the range of

alternatives, and to help develop appropriate evaluation measures to be used in project analyses. The

process confirmed passenger rail as the preferred travel mode to evaluate as part of the study and also

identified significant suggestions and concerns from public comments that would be reflected in technical

analyses. Agency partners offered opinions on possible route, station, and service options. Major themes

from public comments included the desire for a blended rail system that would offer both commuter and

intercity service. Project and agency scoping results are discussed further in Section 3.1.4, and documented

in detail as part of the APRCS Scoping Report (April 2012).

• Level 2 public and agency outreach—The second phase of project outreach sought input from the public

and agency partners on the seven Conceptual Alternatives evaluated during the Level 2 Evaluation. Project

team members solicited public feedback and distributed project surveys at an information booth at 16

scheduled events and festivals in fall 2012. In addition, media updates were released, and a two-minute

informational video and electronic survey was posted on the project website, resulting in over 3,000

completed surveys during the comment period. Respondents reflected their preference among Conceptual

Alternative routes and prioritized the

balance between travel time, access to

population centers, and financial feasibility.

The project team also met individually with

each affected agency partner within the

study area, who in general voiced support

for the project, indicated preferred

alternatives, and echoed public sentiments

for alternative service to population centers

and financial feasibility. The project team

consisted of ADOT and consultant project

staff. Level 2 public and agency outreach

results, including preference among

Conceptual Alternatives, are summarized in

Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 respectively.

• Level 3 public and agency outreach—The third and final phase of outreach focused on the three Final

Alternatives. Engagement methods were similar to those used in Level 2, including team members

distributing information at over 15 community events and festivals in spring 2014, and a sophisticated

survey tool distributed in paper and online versions that asked the public to prioritize the Final Alternatives

based on respondents’ typical origins, destinations, and desired service attributes. Over 5,085 surveys were

received during the outreach process. Affected agencies were again met with individually during this round

of outreach, with the emphasis on specific local needs and opportunities. City staff and several city councils

and committees were consulted. In some instances, officials voiced concerns over potential impacts to

critical locations within study corridors and proposed alternative routes or deviations that were evaluated as

part of the study. Section 3.3.4 and Section 3.3.5 detail public and agency outreach results for Level 3.

Figure 21—Corridor Support Team Workshop
20

2.2 Travel Forecasting Approach

This section presents the approach and methodology used to conduct the travel demand analysis in as part of this

study. The initial travel demand analysis approach of this study proposed to use the Arizona Statewide Travel

Demand Model (AZTDM) to forecast ridership in the AA. The latest version of AZTDM—AZTDM3, which includes a

more sophisticated travel mode choice model—is not anticipated to be available until 2015, so the AA used an

adapted approach that relied on other travel models and databases for estimating the market and ridership for the

commuter and intercity services in the corridor. In future analyses, AZTDM3 will be the basis of travel demand

forecasting.

2.2.1 Level 1 Travel Demand Assessment

The purpose of the Level 1 demand assessment was to identify the comparative magnitude of the travel markets in

each alternative corridor. A sketch planning approach was applied to develop travel market projections using

concentrations of population and employment in the vicinity of potential station locations throughout the corridor.

This served as a reasonable surrogate for trip-making propensity in the initial evaluation of alternatives. This

methodology draws upon the outputs produced by the AZTDM2 model (such as person trips and congested highway

skims5) to identify relative levels of travel activity by market within each potential alternative routing.

2.2.2 Level 2 Travel Demand Assessment

Using the output results from the AZTDM2 model, the Level 2 process provided estimates of comparative ridership

by alternative. The focus was on measuring the relative differences in ridership potential among the alternatives,

not necessarily an absolute number of riders, but a common basis of comparison. The first step compiled data on

mature, functioning rail systems around the country and collecting information on (1) the factors that influence rail

ridership and (2) current rail mode splits. Some of this information was compiled from data used to develop FTA’s

ARRF-II (Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting) model and used in this study to estimate the commuter travel

demand.

In addition to using FTA’s ARRF-II model, FRA’s CONceptual NEtwork Connections Tool (CONNECT) was used to

estimate intercity travel demand. CONNECT is a high-level sketch planning tool that estimates overall performance

of high-speed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) corridors and networks. CONNECT is able to assess the regional

effect of a proposed HSIPR corridor as part of a larger regional network. The tool is intended for use at the very

outset of the planning process as it estimates trip demand between metropolitan statistical areas, such as the

Phoenix MSA and Tucson MSA.

2.2.3 Level 3 Travel Demand Assessment

Ridership forecasts for the Final Alternatives were estimated using the FTA forecasting tool called Simplified Tripson-Project Software (STOPS). It was designed specifically to estimate ridership on fixed guideway systems

considering New Starts and Small Starts6 funding. The FTA-developed STOPS model was used to provide an estimate

of ridership for each of the Level 3 or Final Alternatives. The model replaces the standard “trip generation” and “trip

distribution” steps with Census Transportation Planning Package tabulations to predict detailed travel patterns,

5

 A “highway skim” is a measure of travel impedances between zones in a travel demand model, including congested travel times, distance,

and costs.

6

 New Starts and Small Starts are FTA grant programs that provide funding for capital costs associated with new fixed guideway systems,

extensions, and bus corridor improvements.

quantify trips-on-project measure for all travelers and for transit

dependents, and compute the change in automobile vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) based on the change in overall transit ridership between the no-build

and build scenarios.7 Figure 22 illustrates the three progressively refined

steps of the travel forecasting approach used in the AA. More detail about

the travel forecasting approach is included in Appendix A: Travel

Forecasting.

2.3 System Operating Assumptions

Planning level assumptions were used regarding vehicle performance and

requirements, alignment layouts, and station features. Each alternative used

the same assumptions except for those which differed based on the use of

the existing UP corridor or operation of a bus on the I-10 freeway corridor.

These elements are detailed below at a planning level and will be further

developed in future stages of the study. Although developed at a high level,

these assumptions were necessary considerations to inform analyses and

decisions on viable route options and service development concepts and

also to assist in coordination with partner agencies within the study area.

2.3.1 Rail Alternatives

Rail Speeds

For all rail alternatives, the maximum design speed was

assumed to be 150 mph and maximum operating speed was

assumed to be 125 mph, with segments of lower speed where

design constraints govern, mostly within the urbanized areas,

as well as those which share right-of-way with UP freight

operations.

• Maximum speed assumptions—A maximum speed

assumption was made for each routing segment. The

maximum speed assumption was based mainly on the

character of development patterns adjacent to the

route, as well as the operational rules of shared track

or roadway. The maximum speed assumptions are listed below:

 Urban area (generally north of Gilbert and south of Marana)

 Rail alternative operating at-grade on dedicated track along a route with multiple slow design

curves—80 mph

 Rail alternative operating grade-separated on dedicated track along a route with multiple slow

design curves—110 mph

7

 A “no-build” alternative provides the baseline comparison to the rail and bus “build” alternatives defined and evaluated as part of this study

and includes all programmed transportation facilities and services likely to exist by the forecasted year of project operation.

Figure 22—Travel Demand

Assessment Process

Figure 23—Urban Freight Rail
21

 Rail alternative operating at-grade on dedicated track along route with no slow design curves—

110 mph

 Rail alternative operating grade-separated in urban area on dedicated track along route with no

slow design curves—125 mph

 Rail alternative operating on shared

freight track, subject to UP operating

rules—79 mph

 Rural area (generally Gilbert to Marana)

 Rail alternative operating at-grade on

dedicated track along a route with

multiple slow design curves—110 mph

 Rail alternative operating gradeseparated on dedicated track along a

route with multiple slow design curves—

110 mph

 Rail alternative operating at-grade on

dedicated track along route with no slow

design curves—125 mph

 Rail alternative operating gradeseparated on dedicated track along route

with no slow design curves—125 mph

 Rail alternative operating on shared

freight track, subject to UP operating

rules—79 mph

 Bus alternative operating on local roads

and I-10—40-75 mph (subject to posted

speed limits)

• Standard station dwell time—Standard station dwell times represent the time a train would stop at each

station along a specified route. A dwell time of 90 seconds was assumed for station stops during commuter

service, and a dwell time of 120 seconds was assumed for station stops during intercity service.

Corridor Environment

The elements of routing and corridor environment of the alternatives rely on some basic considerations that help

create the context for each route. A generalized geometric character, right-of-way needs, rail system performance

and technology options, etc., all contribute to how each alternative is created to ensure a realistic option that

complies with the basic expectations of the proposed service.

With that in mind typical sections were developed that show the assumed mainline track profile including ballast

and sub-ballast, drainage requirements, and security fence or barrier requirements. A typical section for a single

track system within an urban context is shown on Figure 25 as an example, while a complete set of typical sections

for all assumed scenarios are included in Appendix B Design Assumptions. The routing assumed at a planning level

for each of the alternatives included each of these elements, as described below, to establish a basic level of

feasibility for each alternative.

A dual track system was assumed for all rail alternatives that would not be constructed within existing freight rail

corridors, where the minimum separation of main line track centerlines is a function of the regulatory environment,

the dynamic envelope of the rolling stock, aerodynamic loads on trains due to passage of another train, provision of

adequate space for drainage and overhead contact system poles, and other factors. The initial application was

assumed as a diesel multiple unit (DMU) system. The dual track typical urban section will be approximately 60-feet

wide and in rural areas will be approximately 100-feet wide. The single track typical section for any alternative that

would be built within an existing freight rail corridor was assumed to be 60-feet wide in both urban and rural areas.

Alternatives which share existing UP rights-of-way were assumed to utilize a single passenger rail track with sidings

and crossings as needed, as shown on Figure 25. The alternatives on UP rights-of-way would follow the UP

commuter service design principles, which specify a minimum 50”-foot center-to-center distance between

passenger and freight operations as part of its internal UP “Commuter Rail Principles.” The existing freight rail

network within the study area is shown on Figure 26. The thick red line in the Figure refers to the UP Sunset Route, a

highly utilized mainline east-west route which connects southern California to Texas. The dashed red line shows the

lesser used UP Phoenix-Subdivision connecting Eloy to the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Additional design oriented assumptions, including super-elevation, degree of curvature, spiral lengths, grades,

vertical curves, and clearances, are described in Appendix B: Design Assumptions. These are illustrative only for

purposes of comparing the alternatives.

Figure 25—Urban Typical Track Section

Figure 24—Rural Freight Rail
22

Figure 26—Existing Rail Network Southwest Regional Context

Each rail alternative was assumed to connect in the future to a larger regional western states rail network

connecting California, Arizona, and Nevada, including the California High Speed Rail System. As identified as part of

the FRA Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study, the western network is envisioned to include a high speed rail

connection between Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. High level design and system performance assumptions

were made to be compatible with the potential future regional network (Figure 27).

Figure 27—Future Western States Rail Network
Service Assumptions

Feedback from the public and agency partners gleaned during the project scoping process emphasized the potential

for viable commuter service within the individual Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, in addition to intercity

service between the two areas. Basic high level assumptions were made for a blended commuter and intercity

system to address these sentiments, which would provide both express intercity service in between Phoenix and

Tucson, and local service tailored to commuters within each metropolitan area. The provision of a blended service

has been reflected throughout the study process including alternative and station typology development, cost

estimates, travel demand modeling, and other aspects of the analysis.

Station Typology

The station typologies developed for each rail alternative include system hub, regional, local, and emerging stations.

Each station fills a purpose in the overall blended commuter and intercity system plan allowing a differentiation of

the rail service(s) it can support.

• System hub stations (i.e., Phoenix and Tucson) serve as the primary nucleus of the passenger rail corridor for

both intercity and commuter service. All trains would stop at the hub stations. The possible system hub of

Phoenix Union Station is shown in Figure 28.

• Regional stations function as major intermediate stations (e.g., Tempe, Sky Harbor) and also serve both

intercity and commuter service. Most trains would stop at regional stations.

• Local stations are smaller stations that are designed to provide access to population and employment

centers (e.g., Gilbert, Queen Creek, Eloy). These stations are served by commuter trains only.

• Emerging stations are locations that, subject to anticipated growth, could become viable station locations.

No service would be offered until a reasonable justification can be made for it.

The station locations vary by alternative but

are intended to optimize travel markets and

transportation connection opportunities along

each alternative route. The stations were

located on each alternative to attract and

serve the largest possible ridership, where the

potential travel markets examined include

both existing and future population and

employment. The transportation connections

examined at each potential station include a

range of multimodal pedestrian, bicycle,

transit, freeway, and airport opportunities.

The overall number of stations for each

alternative was intended to optimize the populations served while not significantly impacting overall travel time.

Potential station locations of all types were evaluated at high-level using catchment areas meant to represent broad

vicinities within a specific neighborhood or district. Decisions and analyses related to the number and placement of

potential station locations were necessary to assist in informing decisions on viable route options and service

development concepts. Specific site locations for potential stations will be evaluated a

could differ from those general locations included in the preferred alternative.

2.3.2 Non Rail Alternatives

Bus speeds

Bus alternatives were assumed to operate at speeds subject to posted speed limits.

was assumed on freeways outside the urbanized area, namely Iassumed within the urbanized area, and speeds of 40 mph on local roadways.

Corridor Environment

Bus alternatives were assumed to operate on the Interstate in a dedicated bus

Metro Silver Line BRT in Los Angeles (Figure 29). Direct access ramps to station areas located within

right-of-way were also assumed. Within the urbanized area, direct access ramps would be limited and stations may

be located outside the Interstate right-of-way.

Figure 29—Los Angeles Metro Silver Line BRT

Service Assumptions and Station Typology

As with rail alternatives, all bus alternatives assumed to operate a blended commuter and intercity system offering

local and express service options. Station typologies were also assigned in a similar manner to rail altern

develop a high level service concept, with potential stations along each route designated as either system hub,

regional, local, or emerging station areas.

Figure 28—Phoenix Union Station

23

development concepts. Specific site locations for potential stations will be evaluated as part of further studies and

could differ from those general locations included in the preferred alternative.

subject to posted speed limits. A maximum speed of 75 mph

-10. A maximum speed of 55 mph on freeways was

mph on local roadways.

state in a dedicated bus-way or HOV lane, similar to the

. Direct access ramps to station areas located within the Interstate

also assumed. Within the urbanized area, direct access ramps would be limited and stations may

As with rail alternatives, all bus alternatives assumed to operate a blended commuter and intercity system offering

local and express service options. Station typologies were also assigned in a similar manner to rail alternatives to

develop a high level service concept, with potential stations along each route designated as either system hub,
24

3.0 Alternatives Development and Evaluation

Through the study process, segments, station areas, and complete routings were examined and refined through the

three-level progression of analysis identifying the range of alternatives (Initial Screening), Conceptual Alternatives

(Level 2), and Final Alternatives (Level 3). This section describes the three-step alternative development process,

which built upon previous studies conducted in the region and will lead to the identification of a preferred

alternative.

3.1 Range of Alternatives

The range of alternatives was the first step in the alternatives development process. It consisted of all reasonable

routes, station locations, and modes that were initially evaluated as part of the study. The evaluation of the range of

alternatives considered all potential route segments that were then combined into alternatives consisting of a

generalized alignment, stations, and mode. The initial segments, station locations, and possible modes used in the

range of alternatives analysis were identified based on previous planning initiatives and corridor studies conducted

throughout the study area, as well as input from partner agencies and the greater public gleaned during the project

scoping process. The Initial Screening of the range

of alternatives resulted in the Conceptual

Alternatives as illustrated in Figure 30.

• Technical input—Initial route segments,

stations, and mode options included in the

range of alternatives were initially

identified by the project team from the

alignments of prior corridor studies

explained in Section 2.1.1, existing

transportation corridors, and other

greenfield corridors developed based of

project team experience and local

knowledge.

• Public input—The elements of the range of alternatives also reflect input received from the public during

the project scoping process. In particular, comments expressed rail as the preferred mode and emphasized

the importance of travel time, speed, limiting environmental impacts, and commuter service. These

sentiments assisted the project team in prioritizing the inclusion of some routings, stations, and modes into

the range of alternatives over others.

Agency input—Opinions on possible routes, station locations, and service options were offered by agency

partners as part of three CST workshops held throughout the study area in summer 2011. Through an

interactive exercise, workshop attendees identified their preferred route, station locations, and service type

within the study area. Alternative elements identified in the workshops helped to supplement and refine

those included as part of the range of alternatives.

3.1.1 Description of Range of Alternatives

The preliminary range of alternatives was initially identified to consist of routes, modes, and potential station areas.

Modes

Three transportation modes were examined to connect Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas—bus, rail, and air.

Personal auto was not considered as a mode in this analysis because it has been and is being addressed as part of

other studies within the region. The characteristics and feasibility of each mode are detailed in Table 7.

Table 7—Mode Options

Bus Rail (DMU) Air

Personal Automobile

(not included)

Average Cost per

Mile

$0.92 $0.63 $16.13 $0.55

CO2 Emissions 56 grams/passenger mile 160 grams/passenger mile 243 grams/passenger mile 371 grams/passenger mile

Energy Use 749 Btu/passenger mile 1,850 Btu/passenger mile 3,260 Btu/passenger mile 3,861 Btu/passenger mile

Implementation

Status

No current plans for

exclusive right-of-way for

buses between Tucson

and Phoenix. There is

existing bus service on

I-10.

Rail connection between

Tucson and Phoenix

identified in State Rail

Plan.

No current plans for

expansion of air service

between Tucson and

Phoenix.

A number of plans are in

place to add capacity for

cars and trucks over the

coming years.

Potential Service

Characteristics

Opportunity for stations in

many intermediate

communities between

Tucson and Phoenix,

offering a range of

connection options.

Opportunity for stations in

a limited number of

communities between

Tucson and Phoenix.

Limited to stations in

Mesa, Phoenix, and

Tucson.

No substantive change

from present roadway

practices, including

predominant use of I-10

for travel between Tucson

and Phoenix.

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2011

DMU = diesel multiple unit train

CO2 = carbon dioxide

Btu = British thermal unit

Despite the potential highway improvements planned within the study corridor in coming years, the ADOT AZTDM-2

travel model indicates that additional capacity could be needed to accommodate the anticipated future population

growth within the corridor. These further improvements would be in addition to the potential widening of I-10 to

ten lanes between Phoenix and Tucson, the construction of the planned North-South Freeway between Apache

Junction and Eloy, and the expansion of SR-79 between Florence and Tucson. For this reason, personal automobile

use was not considered a viable mode as part of this study effort, as the purpose of this study intended to evaluate

alternatives to the currently prevalent use of personal automobiles.

The consideration of air travel was also dismissed as a viable alternative prior to the initial screening. Existing air

flights are limited, relatively costly compared to other modes, and expansion of services within the study would be

limited to Phoenix, Mesa, and Tucson. In addition, the air mode is not equipped to meet the expectations of desired

commuter services.

Figure 30—Range of Alternatives Evaluation
25

Route Segments

There were 42 separate route segments identified based on previous studies, public outreach, discussions about

best routes with public agencies, and a review of the study corridor. Individual route segments from these previous

studies were combined to form 142 potential routings connecting the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. The

segments fall within various county and local government jurisdictions, as well as different types of land ownership

classifications, including Tribal land, State Trust land, and property controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation and the

Bureau of Land Management. The segments vary in length from 1.5 miles to 69.1 miles, and were evaluated as

either 4-mile-wide corridors or centerlines of those corridors as appropriate. Where possible, segments follow an

existing or planned transportation corridor, such as I-10, UP, or alignment options for the concurrent North-South

Corridor Study. All segment centerlines are shown on Figure 31 and described in detail in Appendix C: Range of

Alternatives.

Stations

Potential station locations were identified along potential route segments for the purpose of helping to inform

decisions and analyses on viable routes. For instance, viable station areas located along a route could indicate that

route as having greater potential to serve population concentrations or access major activity centers. In some

instances, the screening could indicate some potential station locations as important regional activity centers that

would be prudent to include as part of an alternative in latter stages of the study. As described in Section 2.3.1.

Three different station types with varying levels of service and infrastructure requirements were used to create the

alternatives. Figure 32 shows all potential station locations identified throughout the study area. Additional data and

analysis on each potential station location is provided in Appendix C: Range of Alternatives, including prototypical

station area development concepts, station area plans, and station footprints developed for each station type

(Figure 33 through Figure 35).

• System hub stations serve as the primary core of the passenger rail corridor for both intercity and

commuter rail service. Only select locations were identified as potential system hub stations, which are

located in downtowns near regional destinations, and which can offer connections to other complementary

transit including light rail, streetcar, or bus. Specific system hubs include downtown Phoenix, Tempe/ASU,

PHX Sky Harbor airport, downtown Tucson, University of Arizona, and Tucson International Airport.

• Regional stations serve both intercity and commuter rail modes and function as major intermediate

stations. Regional stations have multiple access options, transit-supportive land use policies, and will be

gathering centers for the corridor. Regional station locations were determined by considering travel

characteristics and public preferences on how intercity travel is likely to evolve over time. In general,

regional stations are located at community centers to aid in gathering and distributing trips and at the edge

of the urban areas to serve as a collector location for trips traveling to the opposite end of the corridor.

• Local stations will be served by commuter rail service only. The function of local stations is to help move

daily trips efficiently throughout the corridor. Agencies and the public identified locations that represent the

most likely candidates to carry daily trips throughout the corridor based on where major activities are

located within each community and their proximity to the identified segments.

Figure 31—Route Segments
26

Figure 32—Potential Stations Figure 33—Prototypical System Hub Station Area Development

Figure 34—Prototypical Regional Station Area Plan
27

Figure 35—Prototypical Local Station Footprint

3.1.2 Initial Screening

The Initial Screening process was conducted to evaluate

the potential route segments and service types as

presented as part of the range of alternatives in

Section 3.1.1 and represents the first of three levels of

analysis as illustrated in Figure 36. Route segments were

evaluated both individually and also, where appropriate,

as combinations of segments forming unique routings

between Tucson and Phoenix (

Figure 37). The route screening focused on the potential

route locations using parameters including infringement

on sensitive environments, length, potential ridership

market, institutional considerations, existing

transportation uses, and compatibility with local land use

plans. Potential station locations were also considered to

assist in the screening of routing alternatives using

parameters related to transportation connections and

travel markets. An overview of evaluation criteria and

applied screening measures are summarized in Table 8

and detailed throughout this section.

Figure 37—Example Route Composed of Multiple Route Segments

Figure 36—Initial Screening
28

Table 8—Evaluation Criteria Overview—Initial Screening

Evaluation Criteria Description Evaluation Measure

Existing or planned transportation use Ease of implementation given existing transportation

within corridor

4-mile-wide route segment

Infringement on

sensitive

environments

Biological resources Quantified biological resources within corridor using the

Arizona Game and Fish Department Species and Habitat

Conservation Guide tool

4-mile-wide route segment

Historic, cultural, and

archeological places

Number of nationally registered historic places within

corridor

4-mile-wide route segment

Compatibility with community land use plans Compatibility of underlying planned land use within

corridor

4-mile-wide route segment

Institutional considerations Compatibility of underlying land ownership within

corridor

4-mile-wide route segment

Length of routing alternatives Total length of combined route segments between

Tucson and Phoenix, as proxy for cost, constructability,

and ridership

Length of combined route

segment centerlines

Travel markets Existing and future population and employment within

potential station area catchment

1-mile- and 5-mile-radius

catchment areas

Connections

from station

Local transportation

connections

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and local street

intersection density within potential station area

catchment

1-mile-radius catchment area

Fixed guideway transit

connections

Existing or planned fixed guideway transit routes within

potential station area catchment

1-mile-radius catchment area

Other transit

connections

Bus service connections within potential station area

catchment

1-mile-radius catchment area

Freeway connections Freeway access points within potential station area

catchment

1-mile-radius catchment area

Airport connections Distance from potential station area catchment to

nearest commercial passenger airport

Distance from catchment area
Route Screening

The measurement categories used for the Initial Screening of route segments were:

• Existing or planned transportation use

• Infringement on sensitive environments

• Compatibility with community land use plans

• Institutional considerations

• Length of routing alternatives

Each potential routing alternative was evaluated, where possible, as a 4-mile swath to allow for flexibility in

addressing any issues that could arise during later stages of work. The process is summarized in this section while

the detailed data and analysis are included in Appendix D: Initial Screening.

Existing or Planned Transportation Use

Within each route segment identified for evaluation there are existing roadways, existing railroads, planned future

roadways, or a combination of existing and future roadways and rail within a single corridor. The existing or planned

transportation use in a corridor may enable, support, or conflict with a proposed transportation use identified in this

study. In order to assess the existing or planned transportation use in the corridor, the compatibility of the corridor

of each of the 42 route segments was identified as manageable, involved, or difficult, as defined below.

• Manageable—Current or future roadway or rail in the corridor enables the implementation of a new

transportation use

• Involved—Current or future roadway or rail in the corridor supports the implementation of a new

transportation use subject to overcoming identified limitations

• Difficult—Current or future roadway or rail in the corridor creates conflict for the implementation of a new

transportation use

The summary of existing transportation operations by segment is shown graphically on Figure 38. The corridor

between Eloy and Tucson along I-10 encompasses the two major transportation operations of the I-10 freeway and

UP Sunset Route mainline. The section is shown as either manageable or involved since, at this high level, a route

that follows the corridor was determined to be able to utilize I-10 right-of-way without contending with UP

operations. The same is true between Maricopa and Casa Grande, where a route would be able to use either UP or

Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway rights-of-way.

Figure 38—Existing or Planned Transportation Use

29
30

Infringement on Sensitive Environments

At the Initial Evaluation level, the impact of each route segment on sensitive environments was assessed based on

two readily available data sets—biological resources and historic places.

Biological Resources

The biological resources assessment was based upon the Species and Habitat Conservation Guide (SHCG) tool

published in 2011 by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This SHCG tool provided a broad regional assessment

of conservation potential in the study area.

Using the SHCG tool, conservation potential was measured in six levels, as shown on Figure 40 where 1 depicts the

lowest conservation potential (lightest blue color) and 6 depicts the highest conservation potential (darkest blue). To

assess the biological resources impact by segment, the levels were combined and analyzed as follows:

• Low conservation potential—Levels 1 and 2

• Medium conservation potential—Levels 3 and 4

• High conservation potential—Levels 5 and 6

The low, medium, and high conservation potential was quantified in square miles by segment and summarized by

routing alternative.

Figure 39—Pinal County Desert

Source: USA Today

Figure 40—Infringement on Biological Resources

Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2011
Historic Places

The second component used for gauging the Infringement on Sensitive Environments was the total number of

historic places located within each segment. At this initial evaluation level, the total number of registered buildings,

districts, sites, structures, and objects within 4 miles of each segment were quantified and summarized with other

segments to compare the total number of historic places between. The greater the number of known historical,

cultural, and archeological places, as documented in the National Register of Historic Places, the greater the

environmental impact of an alternative route was deemed to have. As shown on Figure 42, the greatest

concentrations of places exist within currently developed areas. Calculation methods and results by segment are

documented in Appendix D: Initial Screening.

This assessment was considered along with Biological Resources to gauge each routing alternative’s overall

infringement on sensitive environments. Several other environmental concerns were addressed in other

measurement categories, including land use, land ownership, and length of full alignment.

Figure 41—Casa Grande National Monument

Figure 42—Historic/Cultural/Archeological Places

Source: National Register of Historic Places, 2011

31
Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans

Existing land use data and future land use plans of communities within the study area were reviewed to assess the

compatibility of a transportation corridor with community land use plans. Both existing and future resident and

employment land uses were identified.

For this measure, the land use compatibility within the routing was classified as high compatibility, medium

compatibility, or low compatibility as described below:

• High compatibility—Most of the land is currently undeveloped and could accommodate a future

transportation corridor

• Medium compatibility—Some of the land is currently undeveloped and could accommodate a future

transportation corridor

• Low compatibility—A significant portion of the land is currently developed and it would be difficult to

accommodate a future transportation corridor

Because this analysis is for the overall impacts of the alternative routings, the alternatives that would impact future

residential or employment lands were preferred over alternatives that would impact existing development and

entitled lands. (“Entitled” lands are properties that have approvals for construction but are not yet built upon.)

Disrupting existing land uses may require extensive mitigation or acquisition to build, whereas future land uses can

be developed to accommodate the transportation corridor, minimizing infringement upon the environment and

seamlessly integrating into the community. The summary of the land use compatibility is represented graphically on

Figure 44.

Figure 43—Sun Corridor New Housing Construction

Source: Jim Poulin/ The Business Journal

Figure 44—Land Use Compatibility

32
Institutional Considerations

Each route segment was evaluated for potential institutional considerations that could represent various levels of

conflict for a transportation corridor by measuring the percentage of each that would be subject to the following

institutional controls (Figure 46):

• National monuments, national parks, or military areas

• Tribal lands

• Existing or future parks/preserves, wilderness areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (as designated

by the Bureau of Land Management), or State of Arizona Department of Game and Fish Lands

• Federal lands (e.g., Bureau of Land Management or Bureau of Reclamation)

• State trust, county, or city lands

Figure 45—Study Area Institutions

Figure 46—Institutional Character of the Corridor

*Parks & Wilderness Areas include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Federal Lands

33

include Military Areas.
34

Length of Routing Alternatives

The total length of each routing alternative was used for the Initial Screening to represent a range of potential

impacts, including:

• Financial—In general, the longer an alternative, the higher the anticipated cost

• Constructability—The longer an alternative, generally the more likely to encounter difficult construction

issues

• Environmental—The longer an alternative, the more opportunity to infringe upon sensitive environments

• Safety—The longer an alternative, the more likely the exposure to conflicts

• Ridership—The longer an alternative, the longer the travel time

Because of the relatively flat topography in this region, no alternatives were considered that would incur significant,

costly design solutions (e.g., tunneling through a mountain) as a trade-off to length.

Alternative routes ranged from a minimum of 117.2 miles to a maximum of 185.7 miles, where the average

alternative route length was 140.7 miles. The alternatives were evaluated based on the overall length, where the

longer alternatives were considered less desirable due to considerations such as higher cost, increased travel time,

and higher likelihood of environmental impacts.

Corridor Routing Screening Results

Using the data, analysis, and ranking process described in the previous section and in Appendix D: Initial Screening,

the individual segments and overall alternative routings were evaluated and ranked. Based on this evaluation,

several segments were removed from further consideration as parts of viable routings. The segments removed are

depicted graphically in black on Figure 47. The green segments are those advanced for consideration as Conceptual

Alternatives. The dashed green lines represent potential extensions to the initial alternative connection between

Tucson and Phoenix. At the conclusion of Initial Screening, it was decided that these potential extensions would be

carried forward as a part of any viable alternative.

Some criteria used in the Initial Screening were weighted more heavily than others (Table 9). Weightings for the

various evaluation criteria were based in a large part on input gleaned during the public outreach process. Travel

time, speed, and mobility were strongly emphasized in public sentiments. Therefore, the total length of routing

alternatives was considered the most influential to a route’s performance, due to the likely impact route length

could affect financial, ridership, and service performance aspects of the route. Infringement on sensitive

environments was considered the second most influential, followed by compatibility with community land use plans

and existing or planned transportation use. Institutional considerations were considered the least influential during

this initial high-level evaluation.

Table 9—Initial Screening Criteria Weighting

Evaluation criteria Share of Total

Score (%)

Existing or planned transportation use 14%

Infringement on sensitive environments 16%

Compatibility with community land use plans 14%

Institutional considerations 13%

Length of routing alternative 43%

Figure 47—Segments Used in Alternatives for Further Study

*Segments carried forward are intended to represent general corridors and do not assume the use of a particular underlying transportation facility, such as I-10

or the UP Sunset Route
35

Potential Station Location Screening

As depicted graphically on Figure 32, potential station locations were considered as part of the Initial Screening only

to the extent that they could inform decisions on routing alternatives. For example, consideration of potential

station locations assisted in determining which routing alternatives serve major population concentrations,

important regional activity centers, and provides connections to airports, freeways, or other transit systems.

However, no stations were removed from consideration as a result of the high-level screening at this initial stage.

The general location used for consideration at this stage does not indicate a precise location, but a broad area or

district within a community. Considerations of potential station areas included travel markets and connections.

Travel Markets

The travel market evaluation is a multi-part measure using

data for population and employment within a wide catchment

area of a potential station to gauge a route’s ridership

demand. Existing and future (2035) timeframes were used to

assess potential ridership, with preference given to existing

conditions over the future anticipated conditions.

Connections from Station

A second consideration for each potential station location was

access to other transportation connections within close

proximity to a general catchment area:

• Transportation connections—Pedestrian, bicycle, and

local street connections were measured by an intersection count within a catchment area as a surrogate for

urban density.

• Fixed guideway transit connections—Fixed guideway transit connections (existing, planned, and

programmed) within a catchment area were identified for each potential station location.

• Other transit connections—The number of non-fixed-guideway transit connections was identified within

each catchment area.

• Freeway connections—Freeway connections were identified within each catchment area, by measuring the

distance from a potential station location to the nearest freeway.

• Airport connections—A straight-line distance from a station location to the nearest commercial aviation

passenger terminal was measured for each potential station area.

The potential station locations considered at this initial stage and included as Conceptual Alternatives were only

those located along high-performing routing alternatives. Although this high-level consideration of potential station

locations was necessary to inform decisions on the route screening process, it in no way precluded the inclusion of

lower performing stations in later levels of analysis. In addition, other potential station locations not considered at

this stage were identified along routing alternatives in latter stages of the study. The calculation process used to

measure travel markets and connections from station is described in detail in Appendix D: Initial Screening.

3.1.3 Initial Screening Technical Results

The Initial Screening technically evaluated route segments and unique alternative routings from Tucson to Phoenix

using the evaluation categories and measures described throughout Section 0. At the conclusion of this evaluation

phase, technically high-performing potential routings were combined with potential station locations to create

seven viable Conceptual Alternatives that could provide realistic opportunities for competitive high-capacity service.

The Conceptual Alternatives were conceived during a project team “bundling” exercise, which pieced together each

alternative using the technical corridor route screening results and potential station locations described previously,

as well as input from the public and affected agencies. Each Conceptual Alternative would provide a viable

connection between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas, as well as key population and employment centers

throughout each region. These Conceptual Alternatives were identified for further analysis and are described in

Section 3.2.1.

3.1.4 Initial Screening Public and Agency Outreach Considerations

Conceptual Alternative routing and station area decisions were made with consideration of public and agency input.

Public comments received during the public scoping process in fall 2011 were used during the bundling exercise.

Those initial comments made clear the desire for the project to improve travel time and overall mobility to an extent

competitive with the automobile, to limit impacts to sensitive environments by using existing transportation

corridors, to offer connections to regional airports, to offer commuter and intercity service, and to improve safety.

Common themes identified from public scoping comments are shown

by category in Table 10. These major themes and desired attributes

gleaned from the public were reflected in the definition of the

Conceptual Alternative routes and stations.

Table 10—Public Scoping Common Themes

Comment Category Number of

Comments

Share of

Comments (%)

Financial feasibility 1,199 8%

Operational characteristics 1,841 13%

Safety and security 1,720 12%

Mobility 6,858 48%

Environment 1,858 13%

Economy 742 5%

The project team also used input from agency partners throughout

the study area for the formation of the Conceptual Alternatives,

based on the opinions on their preferred routes, station locations,

and service options for the project obtained during the CST

workshops in summer 2011. As with the public, agencies expressed a preference for an alternative that would utilize

existing or planned transportation corridors, offer commuter and intercity service, and provide airport connections.

In particular, agency input on major activity centers and desired local station locations, as well as insight into

potential local conflicts were important considerations in the bundling of potential station areas to potential routes

to form each Conceptual Alternative.

Figure 48—Commuter Rail Bicycle Connection

Figure 49—Public Scoping
36

3.2 Conceptual Alternatives (Level 2 Evaluation)

This section outlines the Level 2 Evaluation process, which provides a detailed analysis of the seven Conceptual

Alternatives to arrive at the Final Alternatives as shown in Figure 50. These alternatives are described in

Section 3.2.1, shown on Figure 51 through Figure 58. Each consists of a unique route, set of potential stations, and

selected operating characteristics. The criteria used in the Level 2 Evaluation included measurements designed to

evaluate the route, station locations, and operating characteristics of each alternative, differentiating between the

commuter and intercity service features. Decisions regarding the definition of each Conceptual Alternative were

made with the consideration of technical

evaluation and public outreach results.

• Technical input—The Conceptual

Alternatives were principally based on the

Initial Screening of corridor route

segments and potential station areas.

High-performing route segments

described in “Route Segments” (under

Section 3.1.1), were combined with

potential station areas to form each

unique alternative. The majority of station

locations carried forward were those that

were located along high-performing route

segments. Other stations included major

activity centers that were evaluated highly and would be more desirable to bundle with routings to create a

complete alternative between Tucson and Phoenix.

• Public input—The routes, station locations, and service options included in the Conceptual Alternatives

reflect input received from the public during project scoping. Major comment themes stressed the

importance of travel time, commuter and airport service, and the utilization of existing transportation

corridors.

• Agency input—The Conceptual Alternatives also reflect the opinions of affected agencies within the study

area who expressed thoughts on preferred routes, station locations, and potential challenges within their

local jurisdictions.

3.2.1 Description of Conceptual Alternatives

The seven Conceptual Alternatives evaluated in the Level 2 Evaluation are described below and shown on Figure 51

through Figure 58. The potential station areas included in each alternative are identified as general catchment areas

providing access to activity and population centers along each route but are not meant to represent specific sites.

Although defined and evaluated as 1-mile-wide corridors, high-level cost estimates calculated at this stage required

some general assumptions about the infrastructure that would be necessary to construct each alternative route.

These illustrative infrastructure assumptions were included in alternative definitions for cost purposes only and in

no way prevented changes to these assumptions in later stages of evaluation.

• Blue (Bus) Alternative—A bus alternative that would use existing HOV lanes on I-10 within Maricopa

County, a new dedicated busway on I-10 from Chandler to Tucson, as well as local arterials within downtown Phoenix and downtown Tucson. System Hub stations would include Central Station in Downtown

Phoenix and the Rondstadt Transit Center in downtown Tucson. Other stations would be placed along I-10,

within or adjacent to the freeway (Figure 52).

• Green Alternative—A rail alternative that would use mostly I-10 right-of-way to create the most direct route

between Phoenix and Tucson. The route would begin in downtown Phoenix on an elevated viaduct,

following Washington Street and SR 143 rights-of-way, before returning to grade within the I-10 corridor

and following I-10 into Tucson. Stations along I-10 would be placed within or adjacent to the freeway.

Within Tucson, the route would follow the abandoned El Paso-Southwestern rail corridor from I-10 right-ofway to the southern System Hub in downtown Tucson (Figure 53).

• Orange Alternative—A rail alternative that would use existing and planned freeway rights-of-way to connect

Phoenix and Tucson via eastern Maricopa County and central Pinal County. The route would begin elevated

in downtown Phoenix on Washington Street and remain in an elevated structure, following SR 202L,

SR 101L, US 60, and Ellsworth Road rights-of-way before returning to at-grade construction near the

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The route then would proceed south following an exclusive transit corridor

planned in the proposed Superstition Vistas community and planned North-South Freeway corridor into

Eloy. The route would utilize I-10 and El Paso-Southwestern rail rights-of-way to connect Eloy to the Tucson

System Hub station (Figure 54).

• Purple Alternative—A rail alternative that would use existing freight rail corridors, new greenfield corridors,

and I-10 rights-of-way to connect Phoenix and Tucson through Chandler and GRIC. The route would connect

downtown Phoenix to north Tempe by means of Washington Street in an elevated structure, returning to atgrade construction and following the existing UP Phoenix Subdivision and UP Chandler Branch rail corridors

through Tempe, Mesa, and Chandler into GRIC jurisdiction. The route then would use a new greenfield

corridor through Sacaton until meeting I-10 and use freeway and El Paso-Southwestern rail rights-of-way

south into downtown Tucson (Figure 55).

• Red Alternative—A rail alternative that would connect Phoenix, Maricopa, and Tucson using existing freight

rail and highway corridors. The route would begin in downtown Phoenix on an elevated viaduct, follow

Washington Street east, and return to at-grade construction within UP Phoenix Subdivision rights-of-way.

The route then would follow UP Tempe Branch and SR 347 rights-of-way into Maricopa and use the

Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway, I-10, and El Paso-Southwestern rail rights-of-way into downtown Tucson

(Figure 56).

• Teal Alternative—A rail alternative that would be built within both existing freight rail and planned freeway

corridors to serve Phoenix and Tucson by way of eastern Maricopa County and central Pinal County. The

route would use Washington Street right-of-way between downtown Phoenix and north Tempe on an

elevated structure and return to at-grade construction within UP Phoenix Subdivision right-of-way north of

Tempe Town Lake. The route then would follow UP Southeast Branch and Copper Basin Railway corridors

through the East Valley into Pinal County, meeting the planned North-South Freeway corridor. The

alternative then would use the planned North-South Freeway, I-10, and El Paso-Southwestern rail rights-ofway to Tucson (Figure 57).

• Yellow Alternative—A rail alternative that would use, exclusively, UP rights-of-way or track from downtown

Phoenix to downtown Tucson, including the UP Phoenix Subdivision, UP Southeast Branch, and Sunset Route

from Eloy to Tucson. System Hub stations would be located at, or in close vicinity of Union Station in downtown Phoenix and the historic Tucson Rail Depot, which currently serves as the Tucson Amtrak Station. At

this stage of analysis, the Yellow Alternative was assumed to use only existing freight rail corridors and no

freeway corridors (Figure 58).

Figure 50—Conceptual Alternative Evaluation
37

Figure 51—Conceptual Alternatives Figure 52—Conceptual Blue (Bus) Alternative
38

Figure 53—Conceptual Green Alternative Figure 54—Conceptual Orange Alternative
39

Figure 55—Conceptual Purple Alternative Figure 56—Conceptual Red Alternative
40

Figure 57—Conceptual Teal Alternative Figure 58—Conceptual Yellow Alternative
41

All Conceptual Alternatives include extensions into the West Valley in the Phoenix metropolitan area (to Surprise

along the BNSF Railway line along Grand Avenue and to Buckeye along the UP Wellton Branch and, at the southerly

end, to Tucson International Airport on the UP Nogales Branch. Though these extensions do not materially influence

the routing decision between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas, they represent critical linkages within the

two major metropolitan areas for commuter rail services and for linkages to other metropolitan areas, such as Los

Angeles and Las Vegas.

Route Segments

The route of each Conceptual Alternative was developed based on the alignments that remained after the Initial

Screening analysis of proposed segments, public and agency input, and a project team “bundling” workshop that

combined the remaining route options with potential station locations to identify viable alternatives for more

detailed analysis. For evaluation purposes, the alternative routes were separated into a total of 25 unique alignment

segments, many of which would be used by multiple alternatives (Figure 59). The routes were separated into

segments at locations where alignments intersected one another or where the assumed travel mode or underlying

property ownership differed between alternative alignments. For example, the complete Green Alternative route is

made up of segments 1a, 3, 13, 15, 18, and 19a. Segments with “b,” such as “1b,” indicate the use of UP right-of-way

or track. Segments were evaluated at this stage as 1-mile-wide corridors where possible, a significant refinement on

the 4-mile-wide corridors evaluated as part of the Initial Screening

Evaluating routes by this means allowed flexibility by making clear problematic sections of Conceptual Alternative

routes that could be changed in later stages of the analysis. For example, every Conceptual Alternative followed a

very similar corridor between Eloy and Tucson (shown as segments 19a and 19b on Figure 59). Segment 19a

assumed the use of I-10 rights-of-way while 19b assumed the use of the UP Sunset Route. If either segment was

found to have a major conflict or fatal flaw that prevented the eventual development of a route, an alternative could

be redefined in later stages of the study to include a different segment without drastically changing the context of

an alternative.

The western extensions from downtown Phoenix to Surprise and Buckeye and the southern extension from

downtown Tucson to Tucson International Airport are absent from the route segments evaluated as part of the

Level 2 Evaluation. Although these potential extensions are included in the definition of every Conceptual

Alternative, they do not materially influence the routing decision between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan

areas and were assumed to be carried forward for further analysis.

Figure 59—Route Segments—Level 2 Evaluation
42

Potential Stations

The stations of each Conceptual Alternative were identified following the Initial Screening process and project team

bundling workshop, based on the route segments that were advanced, planned activity and population centers, as

well as public and agency input. As with the Initial Screening, potential station locations were considered to assist in

the assessment of route segments and to help inform decisions about alternative routings. For Level 2 Evaluation

purposes, the station areas of the seven Conceptual Alternatives were separated into a total of 34 unique station

areas (Figure 60). The general locations of the station areas for the Level 2 Evaluation were determined by their

placement within the alternative corridors.

As detailed station areas are not defined as part of this study, each station area was considered as a 1/2-mile-radius

catchment area. The smaller catchment size was determined based on the need for more advanced analysis of local

station context at this stage but is intended to allow for flexibility in later stages of analysis.

Table 11 lists the preliminary name, general location, community, and station type of every station area used for the

Level 2 Evaluation. Although described by general location, potential station locations were defined as 1/2-mileradius catchment areas and were not intended to represent specific sites or exact locations. In addition, potential

station locations were only evaluated as a means to gauge the performance of an alternative route and inform

routing decisions during later stages of the study. The evaluation does not preclude any station area located on a

studied route from being carried forward for further analysis in later stages of the project.

Station types were assigned on a preliminary basis in order to determine operational characteristics for evaluation

purposes, such as speed and travel time, for local and express service of each alternative. The three station types are

described below.

• System hub—A downtown station in Phoenix or Tucson that serves as a key origin and destination point for

both commuter and intercity trips within the corridor

• Regional station—A station located in an urban community or outlying regional destination area that would

be served by both local commuter service and express intercity trips

• Local station—A station located in a local community that would be served by local or commuter trips only

Figure 60—Potential Station Areas—Level 2 Evaluation
43

Table 11—Potential Station Areas—Level 2 Evaluation

Station ID Station Name General Location (Not Exact) Community Station Type

1 Phoenix Central Station Van Buren St & Central Ave Phoenix System Hub

2 Downtown Phoenix Washington St & First Ave Phoenix System Hub

3 Union Station Central Ave & UP PHX Subdivision Phoenix System Hub

4 Sky Harbor (West) Buckeye Rd & 24th St Phoenix Local

5 PHX Sky Train Washington St & 38th St Phoenix Regional

6 PHX Sky Train (UP) 38th St & UP PHX Subdivision Phoenix Regional

7 North Tempe Center Pkwy & UP PHX Subdivision Tempe Local

8 Downtown Tempe 5th St & UP PHX Subdivision Tempe Local or Regional

9 Chandler Blvd I-10 & Chandler Blvd Chandler Local

10 Chandler Blvd (UP) Chandler Blvd & UP Tempe Branch Chandler Local

11 Downtown Mesa Country Club Dr & UP Chandler Branch Mesa Local

12 Downtown Chandler Chandler Blvd & UP Chandler Branch Chandler Regional

13 Gilbert Rd Gilbert Rd & US 60 Mesa Local

14 Downtown Gilbert Gilbert Rd & UP Southeast Branch Gilbert Local

15 Power Rd Power Rd & US 60 Mesa Local

16 Cooley Station Williams Field Rd & UP Southeast Branch Gilbert Regional

17 Gateway Airport Ellsworth Rd & Ray Rd Mesa Regional

18 Downtown Queen Creek Ocotillo Rd & UP Southeast Branch Queen Creek Regional

19 Maricopa Hathaway Ave & UP Mainline Maricopa Local

20 Sacaton Sacaton Rd & Casa Blanca Rd Sacaton Local

21 San Tan Valley Bella Vista Rd & UP Southeast Branch San Tan Valley Local

22 Superstition Vistas Planned Activity Center Superstition Vistas Local

23 Downtown Casa Grande Florence St & UP Mainline Casa Grande Regional

24 Florence Blvd Florence Blvd & I-10 Casa Grande Regional

25 Downtown Coolidge Northern Ave & UP Southeast Branch Coolidge Regional

26 Coolidge-Florence Vah Ki Inn Rd & Clemans Rd Florence Regional

27 Alsdorf Rd Alsdorf Rd & I-10 Eloy Local

28 Eloy (UP) UP Mainline & UP Southeast Branch Eloy Local

29 Eloy (North-South) UP Mainline & North-South Freeway Eloy Local

30 Tangerine Rd Tangerine Rd & I-10 Marana Regional

31 Ina Rd Ina Rd & I-10 Marana Local

32 Downtown Tucson Central Ave & Congress St Tucson System Hub

33 Ronstadt Transit Center 6th Ave & Congress St Tucson System Hub

34 Amtrak Tucson Station 4th Ave & UP Mainline Tucson System Hub

*The general locations of stations are provided for basic orientation and to distinguish stations in close proximity, and are not meant to represent exact

positions or specific sites

*Assigned station types are preliminary at this stage for basic service assumptions

Operating Assumptions

Basic operating assumptions, such as average speed and travel time between Tucson and Phoenix, were developed

for the Level 2 Evaluation based on the specific routes and station areas included in each Conceptual Alternative.

The calculation to determine average speed and travel time for each alternative was a factor of the length and route

of the alignment; the location, number, and distance between potential station areas; and specific speed limitations,

acceleration and deceleration rates, and total dwell times specified for each alternative.

Speed and travel time assumptions for local commuter and express intercity service were differentiated based on

the station areas included in the calculation. Trains operating for local commuter service were assumed to stop at

every station along the route, whereas express intercity trains were assumed to only stop at regional stations.

Only route segments and station areas which could be used to connect downtown Tucson to downtown Phoenix

were used in the Level 2 Evaluation.

3.2.2 Level 2 Evaluation

The Level 2 Evaluation consisted of screening each

Conceptual Alternative based on a set of individual technical

evaluation criteria within six measurement categories. The

Level 2 Evaluation was the second of three alternative

evaluations as represented in Figure 61. Evaluation criteria

used in this stage of the analysis fall into the general

measurement categories of community acceptance and

accessibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility,

operating characteristics, mobility, and safety.

The general measurement categories used for the Level 2

Evaluation, as well as the criteria included in each category,

are summarized in Table 12 and presented further

throughout this section. Individual Screening methods and

results are summarized, as well as an explanation of how

overall Level 2 Evaluation results were determined for each

Conceptual Alternative. The results of the analysis of each

category are discussed in the following sections. More details

of the evaluation process can be found in Appendix E: Level 2

Evaluation.

Figure 61—Level 2 Evaluation
44

Table 12—Evaluation Criteria Overview—Level 2 Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Description Evaluation Measure

Community Acceptance and Accessibility

Compatibility with local plans Effect of the alternatives on existing or proposed plans within the

corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Compatibility with underlying

property ownership

Level of alternative negotiation required with independent

agencies/nations/companies.

1-mile-wide route segment

Compatibility of station areas Compatibility of local community station area development/plans with

transit supportive urban design principles

1/2-mile station catchment

Existing population Existing population within station area 1/2-mile station catchment

Existing employment Existing employment within station area 1/2-mile station catchment

Future population Future population within station area 1/2-mile station catchment

Future employment Future employment within station area 1/2-mile station catchment

Environmental Impacts

Noise receptors Sensitive noise receptors which may be impacted within corridor 1-mile-wide route segment

Historic/cultural/archeological

resources

Number of historic/cultural/archeological resources registered with

the State Historic Preservation Office within corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Water resources Wetlands, flood plains, rivers, washes and arroyos which may be

impacted within corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Wildlife corridors Number of wildlife corridors crossed as identified in the Arizona

Missing Linkages report prepared by Arizona Fish and Game

Department

1-mile-wide route segment

Biological resources Quantified biological resources within corridor using the Arizona Game

and Fish Department “SHCG” tool

1-mile-wide route segment

Financial Feasibility

Operating cost (commuter) Operating cost/year for commuter rail portion of service Complete alternative route

Operating cost (intercity) Operating cost/year for intercity rail portion of service Complete alternative route

Capital cost (commuter) Commuter rail capital costs including track, stations, rolling stock,

maintenance yard, etc.

General alignment within

route segment

Capital cost (intercity) Intercity rail capital costs including track, stations, rolling stock,

maintenance yard, etc.

General alignment within

route segment

Ease of implementation Relative costs of building route including potential property

acquisition, construction challenges, public support, and negotiations

1-mile-wide route segment

Operating Characteristics

Predictability and dependability Anticipated reliability of route compared to baseline condition Complete alternative route

Mobility

Commuter demand Estimate of commuter demand using FTA ARRF-II modeling tool Complete alternative route

Intercity demand Estimate of intercity demand using FRA CONNECT modeling tool Complete alternative route

Commuter travel time (minutes) Commuter travel time in minutes based on average travel speeds Complete alternative route

Intercity travel time (minutes) Intercity travel time in minutes based on average travel speeds Complete alternative route

Safety

Major conflicts Estimate of at-grade railroad crossings needed for rail alternatives General alignment within

route segment

Community Acceptance and Accessibility

The individual criteria used to evaluate community acceptance and accessibility include compatibility with local

plans, compatibility with underlying property ownership, compatibility of station areas, and populations served.

Compatibility with Local Plans

Compatibility with local plans is a general assessment of how well each route conforms to local transportation plans

within the study area. The more compatible an alternative, the more likely the potential development of the

alternative would meet local transportation goals and receive support from local communities along the route.

Each Conceptual Alternative was evaluated for

compatibility with local plans by performing a

qualitative assessment based on existing or

proposed transportation plans within a corridor

as well as impacts on built conditions. The

compatibility with local plans for each complete

alternative route was classified as either

compatible, compatible with difficulties, or

incompatible.

• Compatible (C)—An alternative route

was considered to be compatible if it

was identified in local plans consistent

with the intent of the project or if the

route was located in an existing or

planned major transportation corridor.

Examples of compatible portions of a

route include I-10, US 60, and the

planned North-South Freeway Corridor.

A second consideration was whether an

alternative violated the intended use of

a transportation corridor. For example, the portion of I-10 within the GRIC exists subject to a lease

agreement for highway uses only. The Green Alternative would potentially violate this agreement while the

Blue (Bus) Alternative would not.

• Compatible with difficulties (D)—An alternative route was considered to be compatible with difficulties if it

was not entirely reflected in local plans, would not create significant complications, or if some portions of

the route would not be located in an existing or planned major transportation route while some of the route

would require substantial negotiation. The southern portion of the Yellow Alternative that assumes use of

the UP Sunset Route is an example of this, where the route is located within an existing major

transportation corridor (UP-owned rights-of-way) but would require extensive negotiation with UP in order

to share the Sunset Route transportation corridor.

• Incompatible (I)—An alternative route was considered to be incompatible if it would impact an already built

condition, if it is not reflected in local plans, and if major portions of the route would not be located within

existing or planned major transportation corridors. The Purple and Red Alternatives would be examples of

Figure 62—Superstition Vistas Transportation Plan
45

where major portions of the route would be built on undeveloped land or within the right-of-way of minor

roads. An alternative was also deemed incompatible if it violates the intended use of the corridor, such as

the Green Alternative which violates ADOT’s I-10 lease agreement with GRIC.

Table 13 summarizes the compatibility score for each alternative. The Blue, Teal, and Orange Alternatives were

considered compatible as they are all reflected as transportation corridors in adopted plans, while the Green,

Purple, and Red Alternatives were deemed incompatible, as previously described. The Yellow Alternative is

considered compatible with difficulties. The Yellow is located within an existing major transportation corridor,

but would require substantial negotiation with UP in order to utilize the Sunset Route corridor. Level 2

Evaluation differs from the Initial Screening in that the corridor is more defined and the effects more localized.

Table 13—Compatibility with Local Plans

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Compatibility with local plans C I C I I C D

C = compatible D = compatible with difficulties I = incompatible

Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership

Compatibility with underlying property ownership is an indication of how difficult the development of a Conceptual

Alternative would be in terms of acquiring or gaining access to the land required for construction or operation. The

more compatible an alternative, the more easily needed rights-of-way could be obtained or used without substantial

negotiation or cost.

Each Conceptual Alternative route was evaluated for

compatibility with underlying property ownership by making a

qualitative assessment of the level of negotiation that would

be required with independent agencies, nations, or

companies in order to further pursue the development of the

alternative. The compatibility with underlying property

ownership was classified as either compatible, compatible

with difficulties, or incompatible.

• Compatible (C)—An alternative route was considered

to be compatible with existing property ownership if

its development would require little to no negotiation

with independent agencies, nations, or companies.

For example, the Orange Alternative would be located completely within existing or planned public rightsof-way. A major portion of the Blue (Bus) Alternative would be located within GRIC-owned property.

However, as a highway use, a bus alternative might not require significant additional negotiation.

• Compatible with difficulties (D)—An alternative route was considered to be compatible with difficulties if a

portion of the route would be incompatible with underlying property ownership while the remainder would

be at least partially compatible, requiring at least a moderate level of negotiation with independent

agencies, nations, or companies. For example, the Teal Alternative is primarily located in public owned

rights-of-way with a portion located within UP-owned rights-of-way.

• Incompatible (I)—An alternative route was considered to be incompatible if major portions of the route

were considered incompatible with underlying property ownership, requiring a substantial level of

negotiation with independent agencies, nations, or companies. For example, major portions of the Green,

Purple, and Red Alternatives would be located within the GRIC. The development of the Yellow Alternative

would also require substantial negotiation, as the entire alignment would fall within UP-owned rights-ofway.

Table 14 summarizes the compatibility score for each alternative. The Blue and Orange Alternatives were considered

compatible, as they would be located either in public-owned rights-of-way or would not require any significant

negotiation. The Yellow, Green, Purple, and Red Alternatives were deemed incompatible, since they would all

require substantial negotiations with either GRIC or UP. The Teal Alternative was the only alternative that was

considered compatible with difficulties, since it is located mainly in public rights-of-way but would necessitate some

negotiation with UP.

Table 14—Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Compatibility with underlying property

ownership C I C I I D I

C = compatible D = compatible with difficulties I = incompatible

Compatibility of Station Areas

The compatibility of cities to host station locations and pursue compatible urban development around these

stations, within an alternative, was assessed using a three-step process to inform communities about elements that

foster successful station area planning and then evaluate the individual communities based on improvements/

projects that have been implemented or are planned for implementation.

The first step of this process was the Station Area Planning Exercise at the CST meetings held in July and August

2012. The exercise served to:

• Gain an understanding of land use, urban form, and transit connectivity elements that contribute to a rail

transit-ready environment

• Illustrate public policy and private actions required to proactively prepare for rail transit

• Understand regulatory and policy changes needed

• Understand land use thresholds required by FRA and FTA to obtain federal funding

The second step was to complete the “Community Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit” form, a self-assessment

that was mailed to all communities in the study area that could host a passenger rail station in the future. This

assessment served to review each community’s plans and policies for land use, mobility, connectivity, building

design, housing affordability, and parking that are required to support and enable successful station area

Figure 63—UP Sunset Route
46

development. Cities and towns were encouraged to involve representatives from the Planning/Community

Development, Economic Development, Housing, Transportation, Public Works, and Real Estate departments in the

self-assessment.

The third step of this process included individual meetings with candidate station location cities and towns along the

rail corridor alternatives, where the project team discussed the output of the “Community Readiness Assessment for

Rail Transit” form submitted by the community, updated the community on the alternatives evaluation, and

elaborated on the implications of a possible station site selection in that municipality. Information received through

the self-assessment and during the individual community meetings was used to evaluate each municipality based on

its readiness to host a future passenger rail station. Weighted scores were used to evaluate the communities on the

following criteria:

• Land use

• Mobility and connectivity

• Activity center building design

• Housing affordability

• Parking

In addition to the above criteria, the communities

were scored on their potential ability to facilitate

nearby development conducive to a successful station,

through formal general plans, zoning ordinances, or

other planning documents. Based on the cumulative

evaluation scores, communities were then classified

into the following four categories related to their

ability to host station development:

• Ready

• Nearly ready

• Developing

• In transition

Table 15 summarizes the total quantitative

compatibility score of all station areas included in each

Conceptual Alternative, as determined by the

assessment and detailed in Appendix E: Level

Evaluation. The quantitative scores for each alternative

were then aggregated as either compatible, compatible

with difficulties, or incompatible, based on the relative

score among all seven alternatives. In general, the

Yellow, Orange, Purple, and Teal Alternatives were

deemed compatible as most stations included in the alternatives would be located in denser downtown areas more

amenable to a rail station. Many of the stations included in the Blue and Green Alternatives would be located within

vicinity of I-10 at locations with less supportive land policies and density.

Table 15—Compatibility of Station Areas

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Quantitative score 326 326 467 425 415 462 462

Compatibility of station areas I I C C D C C

C = compatible D = compatible with difficulties I = incompatible

Populations Served

Populations served is an indication of the number of people who would be able to access the rail route and stations.

The higher the number, the more opportunity the service has to attract ridership and result in benefits to the

surrounding communities.

An evaluation of the potential populations served was a quantitative process that used existing and future

population and employment information. The analysis was conducted utilizing a 1/2-mile-radius catchment area for

each station location and demographic data from the AZTDM2. The 1/2-mile-radius catchment area differs in size

from station catchments in other levels of analysis but was deemed appropriate for Level 2 Evaluation to avoid

overlap between many station areas in close vicinity. For the purpose of the Level 2 Evaluation, AZTDM2 outputs

were produced for 2008 for existing population and employment and 2035 for future population and employment.

Table 16 summarizes the quantitative score of station area existing population for each alternative. The higher the

number, the more the alternative is likely to generate ridership for the proposed system.

Table 16—Station Area Populations Served

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Existing population 9,700 10,400 15,500 23,000 17,400 24,800 28,400

Existing employment 96,600 90,600 94,300 107,500 99,300 108,200 89,500

Future population 11,900 12,800 20,000 30,000 20,400 35,200 39,700

Future employment 155,900 151,000 159,800 177,700 166,100 179,500 149,400

Environmental Impacts

The individual criteria measures used to determine the general category score for Environmental Impacts are

potential noise receptors; historic, cultural, and archeological resources; water resources; wildlife corridors; and

biological resources. A more complete environmental review for the Final Alternatives can be found in the

companion Tier I EIS for this project.

Potential Noise Receptors

Noise receptors gauge the potential disruption an alternative’s operation could cause to adjacent residences and

parks along the route. The higher the number of receptors, the more likely the service will have adverse noise

effects on adjacent communities and face potential challenges to implementation.

Figure 64—Tucson Amtrak Station

Figure 65—Tempe Historic Rail Depot
47

Potential noise receptors were evaluated by determining the number of sensitive noise receptors located within

1/2 mile of each alignment segment’s centerline. Table 17 summarizes the total number of noise receptors in each

alternative. The Green and Blue Alternatives have the same score, as each alternative shares essentially the same

route, and do not differ enough in the Tucson and Phoenix downtown areas to capture a different total of noise

receptors.

Table 17—Potential Noise Receptors

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Noise receptors 30,123 30,123 51,041 55,404 36,428 56,372 57,154

Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources

The numbers of officially registered national historic sites or archaeological sites registered with the State Historic

Preservation Office that are located within close proximity to an alternative’s route were recorded. The greater the

number of sites near a route, the more challenges the alternative could face to development. For this portion of the

measure, the total numbers of historic, cultural, and archeological resources within 1/2 mile of a route were

summed by alternative. Table 18 summarizes the quantitative score of historic, cultural, and archeological sites.

Table 18—Historic, Cultural, and Archeological

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Historic/cultural/archeological resources 531 531 604 610 643 666 657

Water Resources

The water resources of wetlands, floodplains, rivers, washes, and arroyos were measured to gauge the potential

impact of each alternative on environmentally sensitive aquatic areas. The higher the number of water resources

impacted, the higher the likelihood of harmful

environmental effects.

The surface water resources of wetlands, floodplains,

rivers, washes, and arroyos were evaluated by

quantifying either acreage or linear feet of water

resources within each 1/2-mile route segment.

Wetlands and floodplains were measured in acres,

while linear feet was used to quantify rivers, washes, or

arroyos, using the most accurate GIS data at the time

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for

wetlands, floodplains, and linear water features (rivers,

washes, and arroyos) were each compiled and

evaluated separately. Table 19 summarizes the quantitative score of water resources examined associated with each

alternative. The total wetlands are the same for all but the Yellow Alternative, since the only wetlands impacted are

located within a shared route segment north of Tucson.

Table 19—Water Resources

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Wetlands (acres) 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 50.5

Floodplains (acres) 16,500 16,500 12,200 17,700 19,100 12,200 12,000

Rivers, washes, and arroyos (linear feet) 700,000 700,000 900,000 798,000 745,000 611,000 581,000

Wildlife Corridors

Wildlife corridors indicate the potential impact of each alternative on sensitive wildlife areas. The greater the

number of wildlife corridors that intersect an alternative, the greater potential for adverse effects on wildlife.

Wildlife corridors within an alternative corridor were assessed based on information provided by the Arizona

Wildlife Missing Linkages report prepared by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Linkages report identifies

areas of “potential linkage zones” throughout the state that are deemed to be particularly sensitive to wildlife

populations. For the purpose of the Level 2 Evaluation, the total number of potential linkage zones that fall within or

intersect each alternative was used to determine the value of this criterion for each alternative. Table 20

summarizes the quantitative score of wildlife corridors associated with each alternative.

Table 20—Wildlife Corridors

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Wildlife corridors 5 5 10 7 5 7 7

Biological Resources

The biological resources assessment was based upon the SHCG tool published in 2011 by the Arizona Game and Fish

Department. This SHCG tool provided a broad regional assessment of conservation potential in the study area. In the

SHCG, conservation potential is measured in six levels, as shown previously in Section 3.1.2. Table 21 summarizes

the quantitative score of biological resources associated with each alternative and the aggregated classification of

high, medium, or low based on relative scores among alternatives. In general, alternative routes which travel

through central Pinal County were shown to have greater conservation potential due to the low amounts of existing

development. Calculation methods are documented in Appendix E: Level 2 Evaluation.

Figure 66—Rillito River
48

Table 21—Biological Resources

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Biological resources

170 170 200 177 159 206 203

M M L M H L L

H = high M = medium L = low

Financial Considerations

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alignments in terms of financial feasibility. The

individual criterion measures include annual operating costs, capital costs, and ease of implementation.

Annual Operating Costs

Annual operating cost assesses the cost of operating commuter and intercity services of each alternative for one

year. The higher the annual operating costs associated with an alternative, the more difficult it would be to fund the

alternative’s continued operating and maintenance costs as well as life-cycle costs.

The evaluation of annual operating cost was conducted by estimating the total cost of operating and maintaining the

services specified by each Conceptual Alternative for one year. The annual operating cost calculation for each

alternative was based on standard train-hour and car-mile cost information from the 2010 National Transit Database

(+3 percent per year inflation), the route characteristics of each Conceptual Alternative, as well as the operating

assumptions discussed below:

• Technology—The use of 125-mph-capable diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains with the potential for future

electric multiple unit train technology for all rail alternatives and 75 mph for express buses for the Blue (Bus)

Alternative

• Operating hours—All train or express bus service would operate for a total of 14 hours each weekday,

covering AM peak, midday, and PM peak periods

• Vehicles per day—The Yellow (UP exclusive) Alternative would operate 10 commuter trains and 8 intercity

trains per day (18 total), due to shared freight track limitations; all other rail alternatives would operate 26

commuter trains and 8 intercity trains per day (34 total); the Blue (Bus) Alternative would operate 40 buses

per day

• Fleet size—Total vehicle fleet size for each alternative was determined from route miles, peak and off-peak

service hours, travel time for commuter and intercity service, and a 20-percent assumption for spare

equipment

The route characteristics of each alternative and the operating assumptions discussed above were used to estimate

fleet size, annual vehicle hours, and annual train or bus miles for each alternative to arrive at the annual operating

cost estimate. The estimated fleet size, annual vehicle hours, annual vehicle miles, and total annual operating cost of

each alternative is shown in Table 22. More detail on operating costs is included in Appendix F: Cost Assumptions.

Table 22—Total Annual Operating Cost

Annual Total

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Fleet size (DMU or express bus) 48 52 64 64 64 68 52

Train or bus hours 96,645 20,655 24,990 24,480 23,460 25,500 15,045

Train or bus miles 3,943,065 4,917,420 5,795,640 5,092,860 5,157,936 5,167,320 3,155,880

Operating cost $107 M $86 M $102 M $91 M $92 M $93 M $56 M

M = millions

Table 23 provides a breakdown of the cost ratio for commuter and intercity services provided by each alternative,

proportional to the service hours for commuter and intercity, respectively.

Table 23—Annual Operating Cost—Commuter and Intercity Share

Annual Total

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Commuter share — $55 M $65 M $58 M $59 M $59 M $23 M

Percent of total — 64% 63% 64% 64% 64% 41%

Intercity share $107 M $31 M $37 M $33 M $33 M $34 M $33 M

Percent of total 100% 36% 37% 36% 36% 36% 59%

M = millions

Capital Costs

Capital cost was evaluated by estimating the total cost of construction and equipment necessary to complete each

Conceptual Alternative in 2012 dollars. Estimates included track, stations, rolling stock, maintenance yards, power

systems, etc. The capital cost calculation for each Conceptual Alternative was based on the route characteristics of

each alternative, unit costs from recent projects, industry data, and several cost assumptions discussed below:

• Busway or track—Double track was an underlying assumption for each rail alternative. In the portions of rail

alternative routes that fall within existing rail corridors, track additions and improvements were assumed in

order to ensure dual track along the entire length of the alignment. In the portions of rail alternative routes

outside existing rail corridors, the construction of a new double track was assumed. The Blue (Bus)

Alternative assumed the use of existing or planned HOV lanes where possible and the construction of two

new dedicated bus lanes in sections of the alignment without existing or planned HOV lanes.

• Equipment—The use of electric multiple unit train sets was assumed for each rail alternative, specifically

four vehicle trains for commuter service and eight vehicle trains for intercity service. The Blue (Bus)

Alternative assumed the use of 48 electrified express buses for intercity service.

• Crossovers—The construction of universal crossovers was assumed at 5- to 10-mile spacing along each rail

alternative route in order to allow trains to switch tracks when necessary during operations.
49

• Right-of-way—The purchase of right-of-way for the routes,

stations, and maintenance facilities associated with each

alternative was not considered within Level 2 Evaluation

capital cost estimates. Although it is acknowledged that

right-of-way cost could be significant, the alignments at this

stage of analysis are not clearly defined enough to provide

a complete picture of necessary right-of-way. Right-of-way

will be an important factor in later stages of analysis.

• Contingency—A contingency of 40 percent was added to

the total capital cost estimate of each alternative to cover

such things as materials cost changes over the course of the

project, significant design adjustments, inflation, interest

rate changes, and unforeseen environmental mitigation.

The characteristics of each alternative, unit costs from recent projects, industry data, and the cost assumptions

discussed above were used to calculate a high-level capital cost estimate for each alternative. Table 24 shows the

total capital cost estimate for each Conceptual Alternative as well as a breakdown of the general cost categories

used to calculate the total cost. The value of the 40-percent contingency was distributed throughout the various cost

categories for the purpose of the estimate, with the remaining unallocated contingency indicated in the table. It is

important to acknowledge that all capital cost estimates were calculated at a high level using comparable unit costs

and factors for the purpose of distinguishing between Conceptual Alternatives. A more refined estimate of costs will

be available once final alternatives are more clearly defined. More detailed calculations of the capital cost estimate

is included in Appendix F: Cost Assumptions.

Table 24—Total Capital Costs

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Total Capital Cost $2.2 B $7.8 B $10 B $7.5 B $7.7 B $7.6 B $ 5.1 B

Busway or track elements $721 M $2.7 B $3.8 B $2.3 B $2.4 B $2.4 B $1.0 B

Stations and terminals $42 M $75 M $115 M $90 M $80 M $100 M $75 M

Support facilities $7.2 M $100 M $125 M $125 M $125 M $135 M $105 M

Sitework and special conditions $133 M $580 M $670 M $640 M $660 M $540 M $420 M

Signal and power systems $263 M $1.7 B $2.0 B $1.8 B $1.8 B $1.8 B $1.8 B

Vehicles $72 M $250 M $310 M $310 M $310 M $325 M $250 M

Professional services $308 M $1.2 B $1.6 B $1.2 B $1.2 B $1.2 B $0.8 B

Unallocated contingency $295 M $1.1 B $1.4 B $1.1 B $1.1 B $1.1 B $0.7 B

Finance $8 M $8 M $8 M $8 M $8 M $8 M $8 M

B = billions M = millions

Table 25 provides a breakdown of the total capital cost for commuter and intercity services based on the ratio of

service hours for each type of service, as determined by operating cost estimates.

Table 25—Total Capital Cost—Commuter and Intercity Share

Annual Total

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Commuter share — $5.0 B $6.4 B $4.8 B $4.9 B $4.8 B $2.1 B

Percent of total — 64% 63% 64% 64% 64% 41%

Intercity share $2.2 B $2.8 B $3.7 B $2.7 B $2.8 B $2.7 B $3.1 B

Percent of total 100% 36% 37% 36% 36% 36% 59%

B = billions

Ease of Implementation

Ease of implementation indicates the potential added costs associated with major construction, property

acquisition, and jurisdictional issues. The higher the determined ease of implementation, the less likely an

alternative will face costly and unanticipated challenges to implementation.

Each complete alternative was evaluated for ease of implementation by making a high level qualitative assessment

of the relative costs of developing and constructing the complete alternative. Specifically, the measure was intended

to gauge added costs due to factors such as property acquisition, construction challenges, public support, and

negotiations with independent entities. For this measure, ease of implementation for each complete alternative

alignment was classified as either high, medium, or low.

• High (H)—An alternative alignment was considered to have a high ease of implementation if its anticipated

property acquisition costs would be minimal, have limited construction challenges, have acceptable overall

public support, and have no substantial negotiation required to make the alignment available to the

proposed service. The Blue (Bus) Alternative, for example, would most likely have minimal property

acquisition costs (though it would require approval of the GRIC), few significant design challenges, and

limited impacts compared to other alternatives.

• Medium (M)—An alternative alignment was considered to have a medium ease of implementation if its

anticipated property acquisition costs would be moderate, have some construction or public acceptance

challenges, or require some limited negotiation to acquire needed rights-of-way or operating licenses. For

example, the Orange and Teal Alternatives may encounter higher right-of-way costs compared to other

alternatives but would most likely be generally accepted by the public and would require only traditional

negotiation to acquire rights-of-way or operating licenses.

• Low (L)—An alternative was considered to have a low ease of implementation if there would be significant

anticipated property acquisition costs, significant construction challenges, challenges to public acceptance,

and complex negotiation to acquire needed rights-of-way or operating permission. For example, the Green,

Purple, Red, and Yellow Alternatives would have higher costs and would require substantial negotiations

with either GRIC or UP.

Figure 67—Commuter Rail Construction

Source: Denver Regional Transportation District
50

As shown in Table 26, the Yellow, Green, Purple, and Red Alternatives were deemed to have a low ease of

implementation since they would require substantial negotiation with either GRIC or UP. The Orange and Teal

Alternatives were considered moderately implementable based on their general public acceptance and moderate

costs related to construction. Only the Blue (Bus) Alternative was thought to have a high ease of implementation

since the proposed express bus service along I-10 would be generally accepted by the public with minimal

construction costs.

Table 26—Ease of Implementation

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Ease of implementation H L M L M M L

H = high M = medium L = low

Operating Characteristics

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alternatives in terms of operating characteristics,

which is based on the single criterion of predictability and dependability.

Predictability and Dependability

Predictability and dependability assesses the reliability of each alternative based on the effects of other

transportation modes and weather conditions. The higher the reliability associated with an alternative, the less the

chance for the operations of the alternative to be interrupted by conditions that can affect optimal performance.

Each complete alternative alignment was evaluated for predictability and dependability by making a qualitative

assessment of anticipated reliability of the route in terms of impacts from other transportation modes and

interference from adverse weather conditions. An example is the potential for operational conflicts between freight

movements on the line and passenger service. For this measure, predictability and dependability for each complete

alternative was classified as either high, medium, or low. Table 27 summarizes the evaluation of predictability and

dependability for each alternative.

• High (H)—An alternative alignment was considered to have high predictability and dependability if there

would be little to no anticipated impacts from other transportation modes or adverse weather conditions.

For example, both the Green and Orange Alternatives would operate with zero interference from highway

automobile or freight rail traffic, and the rail operation would be essentially unaffected by normal corridor

adverse weather events.

• Medium (M)—An alternative alignment was considered to have a medium level of predictability and

dependability if there would be moderate anticipated impacts from other transportation modes or adverse

weather conditions. Major portions of the Purple, Red, and Teal Alternatives would have potential conflicts

with freight rail traffic on UP-owned track.

• Low (L)—An alternative alignment was considered to have a low level of predictability and dependability if

there would be significant anticipated impacts from other transportation modes or adverse weather

conditions. The entire Yellow Alternative alignment would have potentially significant conflicts with freight

rail traffic on UP-owned track whereas the Blue (Bus) Alternative would be impacted by both I-10

automobile congestion and potential dust and wind storms.

The Blue and Yellow Alternatives were considered to have a low level of predictability and dependability, based on

interference from either automobile traffic on I-10 or freight operations within the UP corridor. The Green and

Orange Alternatives had a high level of predictability since their operations would have no interference from other

travel modes, while the Purple, Teal, and Red Alternatives were determined to have moderate predictability and

dependability because of the portions of their alignments within UP-owned corridors.

Table 27—Predictability and Dependability

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Predictability and dependability L H H M M M L

H = high M = medium L = low

Mobility

The individual criteria used to evaluate mobility include potential ridership and travel time.

Potential Ridership

Potential ridership is an indication of the potential demand for the assumed commuter and intercity services of each

alternative. Potential ridership was evaluated in a two-pronged process using sketch planning tools to estimate

ridership demand for both commuter and intercity services. The ARRF-II was used to estimate commuter travel

demand, while intercity travel demand was estimated using FRA’s

CONNECT. Both sketch modeling approaches and screening results

are discussed below and in more detail in Appendix E: Level 2

Evaluation.

Commuter Demand

For purposes of the Level 2 Evaluation, the default mode of access

and catchment assumptions along with potential station areas,

alignment length, and assumed local operating speed were used as

inputs into the ARRF-II model to produce an estimate for weekday

commuter demand for each alternative. Table 28 summarizes the

commuter demand associated with each alternative.

Table 28—Commuter Demand

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Commuter demand 1,250 4,200 5,900 5,550 5,200 6,250 5,600

Figure 68—Metrolink Commuter Train

Source: METROLINK
51

Intercity Demand

Demand for intercity rail services was evaluated through ridership estimates produced by FRA’s CONNECT. The tool

is intended to be used during early stages of the planning process, before alignment and operational plans are fully

developed. A complete breakdown of all CONNECT system assumptions used for each alternative is documented in

Appendix E: Level 2 Evaluation. Table 29 details the CONNECT-generated order of magnitude daily demand

estimates for each alternative.

Table 29—Intercity Demand

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Intercity demand — 2,710 2,640 2,730 2,710 2,720 2,710

Travel Time

Travel time is an estimate of the duration of a trip between Tucson and Phoenix. Travel times were estimated from

downtown Tucson to downtown Phoenix given the route and station areas specified for each alternative. The total

travel time calculation for each alternative was based on the factors discussed below and based on the technology

characteristics previously presented in Section 2.3.

• Potential station areas—The number of station areas included in each alternative and the distance by

specified route between the stations served as the basis for the travel time calculation.

• Maximum speed assumptions—A maximum speed assumption was made for each alignment segment. The

maximum speed assumption was based mainly on the character of development patterns adjacent to the

alignment as well as the operational rules of shared track or roadway. The maximum speed assumptions are

listed in detail in Section 2.3.

• Standard acceleration and deceleration rates—Acceleration and deceleration rates for rail alternatives

were based on British Rail IC 125 Lightweight Diesel trains, which accelerate at an average of

0.58 mph/second and decelerate at an average of 1.75 mph/second. Average acceleration and deceleration

rates for a 12.5 meter bus was used for the Blue (Bus) Alternative, which specify an average acceleration of

1.92 mph/second and an average deceleration of 5.76 mph/second.

• Standard station dwell time—Standard station dwell times represent the amount of time a train would stop

at a station throughout a specified route. A dwell time of 90 seconds was assumed for station stops during

commuter service, and a dwell time of 120 seconds was assumed for station stops during intercity service.

Commuter travel time was calculated based on the route, station areas, maximum speed assumptions, and standard

acceleration and deceleration rates of each alternative. For commuter service, it was assumed that the train would

stop for a standard dwell time of 90 seconds at every station area specified along the route from Tucson to Phoenix.

Intercity travel time was calculated based on the route, station areas, maximum speed assumptions, and standard

acceleration and deceleration rates of each alternative. For intercity service, it was assumed that the train would

stop for a standard dwell time of 120 seconds at station areas specified as “regional stations.” Table 30 summarizes

the commuter travel time associated with each alternative.

Table 30—Travel Time

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Commuter travel time (minutes) 111 83 107 105 100 111 126

Intercity travel time (minutes) 111 73 88 90 85 91 110

Safety

This section describes the screening method used to compare alternatives in terms of safety, which is based on the

single criterion of major conflicts.

Major Conflicts

Major conflicts gauge the potential of trains or buses

associated with each alternative to collide with other

vehicles at conflict points. The lower the number of

conflict points along an alternative’s route, the safer the

alternative’s operations. Each alignment was evaluated in

terms of the number of identifiable conflict points along

the route segment. Conflict points for rail alternatives

were determined by the number of existing or anticipated

at-grade road crossings along each route, where the

moving train could potentially collide with crossing

vehicles. It is important to note that construction

assumptions, such as the installation of elevated railway

structure, bridges, and grade separations within each rail alignment segment, were considered for the purposes of

evaluation. For example, a route segment located within an existing rail corridor may be considered to have fewer

at-grade road crossings than the existing track operating environment after incorporating needed improvements to

the track, such as improved gates. The bus alternative was assumed to have potential for automobile collisions

throughout the entire route, since it would operate within traffic on local roads and I-10. Table 31 summarizes the

major conflicts associated with each rail alternative.

Table 31—Major Conflicts

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

NorthSouth

Corridor/

E. Valley

UP

Tracks

Major conflicts 0 0 0 31 38 26 74

Figure 69—Tempe At-grade Rail Crossing
52

3.2.3 Level 2 Evaluation Technical Results

The Level 2 Evaluation screened seven Conceptual Alternatives against various quantitative and qualitative criteria

within six general measurement categories. Each complete alternative encompassed several elements, including a

route, potential station areas, and operating assumptions. The individual criteria included in the Level 2 Evaluation

assessed individual elements within each alternative or the alternative as a whole.

Table 32 shows the general measurement category scores of each alternative, summarized into an overall

assessment of each alternative in terms of the six evaluation categories. The relative score for each general

measurement category were summarized on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being desirable and 1 being less desirable), and

shown graphically using “Harvey Ball” symbols as = 3, = 2, and = 1. When all general measurement category

scores are averaged by alternative and ranked comparatively, the Orange Alternative performed the best overall.

The Green and Teal Alternatives also scored highly, while the Blue (Bus), Red, and Yellow Alternatives scored below

average.

The Orange Alternative scored the highest overall

because the alternative’s operations would have no

jurisdictional issues with GRIC or UP, would face no

interference from automobile or freight rail traffic

since the route avoids both I-10 and the UP corridor,

and would serve many major population and

employment centers. The Green, Teal, Purple, Blue

(Bus), and Red Alternatives received average overall

assessments due to mixed overall results among the

general measurement categories. The Yellow

Alternative scored low overall due mainly to potential

conflicts with UP operations along the UP Sunset

Route, which limit mobility, predictability and

dependability, and safety.

The technical results at this stage reflect the

performance of each Conceptual Alternative, as

defined at the onset of the Level 2 Evaluation. As

described in Section 3.2.1, each alternative was

evaluated as a set of route segments which would

enable an alternative route to be redefined at the

conclusion of the Level 2 Evaluation if the analysis

indicated a major conflict or fatal flaw within the route

segment. For example, analysis indicated that the poor

performance of the Yellow Alternative was due to the

assumption that the route would use UP Sunset Route

right-of-way between Eloy and Tucson (southern section) and that the northern section could remain as part of a

viable alternative route if combined with other viable route segments (Figure 70). The technical results were an

essential element considered during the selection of the Final Alternatives for further analysis. However, decisions

of Final Alternatives also took into account input from the public and affected agencies.

Table 32—Level 2 Evaluation Results

Criteria

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

I-10

Busway I-10 Rail

Central

Pinal/

E. Valley

I-10/UP

Chandler

Branch

Western

Pinal/UP

Tempe

Branch

North

South

Corridor/E.

Valley UP Tracks

Community Acceptance and

Accessibility

Compatibility with local plans

Compatibility withunderlying

property ownership

Compatibility of station areas 326 326 467 425 415 462 462

Existing population 9,700 10,400 15,500 23,000 17,400 24,800 28,400

Existing employment 96,600 90,600 94,300 107,500 99,300 108,200 89,500

Future population 11,900 12,800 20,000 30,000 20,400 35,200 39,700

Future employment 155,900 151,000 159,800 177,700 166,100 179,500 149,400

Environmental

Noise receptors 30,123 30,123 51,041 55,404 36,428 56,372 57,154

Historic/culturalarcheological

resources

531 531 604 610 643 666 657

Wetlands 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 50.5

Floodplains 16,500 16,500 12,200 17,700 19,100 12,200 12,000

Rivers, washes, and arroyos 700,000 700,000 900,000 798,000 745,000 611,000 581,000

Wildlife corridors 10

Biological resources 170 170 200 177 159 206 203

Financial Feasibility

Operating Cost (Commuter) $55 M $65 M $58 M $59 M $59 M $23 M

Operating Cost (Intercity) $107 M $31 M $37 M $33 M $33 M $34 M $33 M

Capital Cost (Commuter) $5.0 B $6.4 B $4.8 B $4.9 B $4.8 B $2.1 B

Capital Cost (Intercity) $2.2 B $2.8 B $3.7 B $2.7 B $2.8 B $2.7 B $3.1 B

Ease of Implementation

Operating Characteristics

Predictability and Dependability M M

Mobility

Commuter Demand 1,250 4,200 5,900 5,550 5,200 6,250 5,600

Intercity demand 2,710 2,640 2,730 2,710 2,720 2,710

Commuter travel time (minutes) 111 83 107 105 100 111 126

Intercity travel time (minutes) 111 73 88 90 85 91 110

Safety

Major conflicts 31 38 26 74

C = compatible D = compatible with difficulties I = incompatible H = high M = medium L = low

 = highest ranking = lowest ranking

Figure70 UP Sunset Route
53

3.2.4 Level 2 Public Outreach Results

In addition to the technical analysis, a critical assessment of the Conceptual Alternatives is the response from

communities to the prospects of a new passenger rail service within the corridor. For the Level 2 Evaluation, study

team members staffed an information booth at 16 scheduled events and festivals between October 6, 2012, and

December 9, 2012, in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties (Figure 72). The booth was designed to display and solicit

feedback on the seven Conceptual Alternatives. Nearly 2,000 project-specific information booklets and comment

forms were distributed during the events. The deadline to provide comments was December 31, 2012. The details of

the individual events are included in Appendix G: Level 2 Public Outreach.

To maximize participation in the program, ADOT made participation as

convenient as possible. To that end, one key element of participation at the

events was the distribution of a 16-page booklet with an eight-question

survey and self-addressed postage paid envelope. A 2-minute 50-second

video was also available online at www.azdot.gov/passengerrail along with

an electronic version of the survey. Over 3,000 completed surveys were

received during the comment period.

Results of the survey and comments received during the outreach period

reflected strong support for rail between Tucson and Phoenix. Many

respondents felt that rail is the future and are happy to see that alternative

options for I-10 are being studied. It was clear that a balance between

travel time and serving population centers was important, along with

financial feasibility. The public’s preference for the alternatives is indicated

on Figure 72. Respondents were allowed to select multiple alternatives,

which is why total percentages are greater than 100 percent.

Figure 72—Level 2 Public Preference

While the Green Alternative is favored because of the shorter travel time, further inquiries and results from the

surveys suggest respondents also prefer service to the places they are likely to travel to. The Purple, Orange, Teal,

and Yellow Alternatives provide access to activity centers more effectively

than the Green Alternative though they have longer travel times. The Red

and Blue Alternatives were consistently less favored due to slower travel

time, reduced reliability, and less access to activity centers, which is also

consistent with the technical analysis.

3.2.5 Level 2 Agency Outreach

In parallel with the public outreach, ADOT and the project team organized

CST meetings and one-on-one meetings with each affected agency within

the study corridor. There was also general support for the project at the

agency level and the results of the discussions resulted in similar findings

compared to the public. Figure 74 shows the indication of preference from

the affected agencies based on their CST participation. In addition, ongoing

meetings were held with GRIC staff and officials as well as UP officials to

coordinate on decisions regarding alternatives that would utilize UP

property.

Figure 74—Level 2 Agency Preference

The Purple Alternative was viewed as a kind of hybrid between the fast travel time on the Green Alternative and the

better ability of the Yellow and Orange Alternatives to serve the communities in the East Valley of the Phoenix

metropolitan area. The Teal and Orange Alternatives fared well because they offer access and the Blue and Red

Alternatives were undesirable for the opposite reason. The Yellow Alternative, as defined at this level, was not

favored largely because of the longer travel time associated with assumptions about the operation of a shared

freight and passenger corridor, which could especially cause disruptions along the UP Sunset Route between Eloy

and Tucson.

44%

75%

62%

67%

33%

53%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Blue

Green

Orange

Purple

Red

Teal

Yellow

Blue Green Orange Purple Red Teal Yellow

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Blue

Yellow

Green

Orange

Purple

Teal

Red

This alternatives makes the most sense... This alternative would be the best if...

This alternative is unacceptable because...

Figure 71—Information Booth

Figure 73—CST Meeting
54

3.2.6 Conceptual Alternatives Removed from Consideration

This section describes the Conceptual Alternatives eliminated from further consideration at the conclusion of the

Level 2 evaluation, along with the reasons for their elimination. Further refinements to alternatives leading to the

selection of the Final Alternatives prior to the Level 3 Evaluation are described in Section 3.3.

• Blue Alternative–The Blue (Bus) Alternative would be subject to unpredictable highway conditions on I-10,

including increased congestion, traffic accidents, and inclement weather events that would make bus

operation, even in a dedicated lane, unsafe or unreliable. As part of the Level 2 Evaluation, the FTA ARRF-II

modeling tool was used to estimate levels of commuter demand for each Conceptual Alternative. Through

this analysis, the Blue (Bus) Alternative demonstrated significantly low commuter demand compared to

other alternatives, indicating that the Blue (Bus) Alternative would not provide an effective solution to

increasing capacity constraints on the regional highway system. Furthermore, it was determined that the

bus service offered by the Blue (Bus) Alternative would be limited to travel under the same operating

conditions as adjacent automobile traffic and would be subject to congestion and safety issues similar to

those in the automobile at locations where the systems interact, thus not offering a real alternative to

existing automobile travel. This determination was made despite the assumption of the use of existing and

new HOV lanes on I-10. For these reasons, the Blue (Bus) Alternative does not meet the stated purpose and

need of the APRCS study. In addition, the Blue Alternative was the second least popular among the publicbased survey results and received the highest amount of negative submitted comments. High-level

operating cost estimates also indicated that long-term operation and maintenance costs for bus service

would be much greater than a rail alternative and would have substantially lower passenger capacity.

• Purple Alternative—This corridor uses I-10 from Tucson north and runs through the center of the GRIC’s

population center in Sacaton on a new Greenfield alignment to join the Chandler Branch of UP into Phoenix.

The portion of the corridor through the GRIC would be subject to significant tribal land right-of-way and

cultural and historic resource challenges. The cost of the needed tribal right-of-way would be expected to be

exceedingly high and the legal process for allotted land acquisition could prove overly cumbersome and

uncertain, as evidenced by recent examples of tribal land purchases for transportation corridors throughout

the region. In addition, GRIC representatives suggested the study focus on routings within existing

transportation corridors, noting their concern over resource challenges related to greenfield alignments

through Sacaton. The routing through GRIC land would also have much lower ridership potential and lack

connectivity to major activity and population centers compared to other viable alternatives.

• Red Alternative—The proposed corridor would use existing highway ROW through GRIC land from

metropolitan Phoenix to the City of Maricopa, before proceeding within ADOT ROW from Maricopa, through

Casa Grande and Eloy, to Tucson along I-10. The alternative would travel a longer distance than other

alternatives, following an indirect route between Phoenix and Tucson, resulting in a slower total travel time

than most other alternatives. The alternative would also be expected to have low ridership potential due to

the comparatively low number of major population centers along the route. These limitations were reflected

during the second public outreach phase, when the public ranked the alternative the least favorable overall,

and agency partners affected by the alternative stated a preference for other alternative routes. In addition,

the alternative would require the use of additional GRIC tribal land, which would likely face highly increased

right-of-way costs, cultural and environmental resource challenges, cumbersome and uncertain legal

acquisition processes, and a possible violation of highway lease agreement between GRIC and ADOT.

3.3 Final Alternatives

This section describes the Final Alternatives and the Level 3 Evaluation process. The Final Alternatives were

identified with consideration of the Level 2 Evaluation results, an analysis of major conflicts or fatal flaws, public

outreach, and coordination with partner agencies throughout the study area. The Level 3 Evaluation consisted of a

more refined and detailed analysis of the Final Alternatives, culminating in the selection of the preferred alternative

(Figure 75). Considerations used to inform the selection of the Final Alternatives are summarized below:

• Technical evaluation input—The Level 2 Evaluation indicated that the Orange Alternative was the most

feasible given a multitude of evaluation criteria documented in Section 3.2.2 of this report. The Green and

Teal Alternatives also scored higher than

average, while the Yellow and Red

Alternatives were considered the least

feasible. However, analysis indicated that

the poor performance of the Yellow

Alternative was due to the assumption

that the route would use UP Sunset Route

right-of-way between Eloy and Tucson

(southern section). These technical results

were essential elements, but one of

multiple considerations in the selection of

the Final Alternatives.

• Major conflict or fatal flaws—A separate analysis of major conflicts conducted concurrently with the Level 2

Evaluation determined several Conceptual Alternatives or route segments to be either fatally flawed or have

other characteristics that rendered them non-competitive. These determinations were made in part through

coordination with GRIC and UP.

• Public input—Comments received from the public on the Conceptual Alternatives favored routes that would

offer the fastest travel time but also those that serve population centers and activity centers. Among the

public, the Green Alternative was favored the most and the Red and Blue (Bus) Alternatives were favored

the least due to travel time. The Purple, Orange, Teal, and Yellow Alternatives were also favored relatively

high based on the access they would provide to activity centers.

• Agency input—Opinions gleaned from affected agencies during one-on-one meetings and CST meeting

participation echoed similar themes to the public, including an emphasis on travel time and access to

population and activity centers. Meetings with GRIC staff and officials brought to light their concerns about

alternative routes that would follow greenfield corridors through GRIC land and likely face cultural and

historic resource challenges. Initial discussions with UP expressed major concerns about any alternative that

would have shared passenger and freight service on the Sunset Route. However, further coordination

opened potentially valuable possibilities for the Phoenix Subdivision of the UP system (north of I-10 from

Eloy to Phoenix).

Figure 75—Final Alternative Evaluation
55

3.3.1 Description of Final Alternatives

Final Alternative Selection

After considering the results of the Level 2 Evaluation, stakeholder input, and the presence of fatal flaws, the Teal

Alternative was initially selected as a Final Alternative. However, further investigations of the alternatives resulted in

the determination that the Teal Alternative would not be further evaluated as part of the Level 3 Evaluation as

described below:

• Teal Alternative—With the reconfiguration of the Yellow and Orange Alternatives to include common

corridors from downtown Phoenix to Tempe and Eloy to Tucson, the route assumed by the Teal Alternative

would consist almost entirely of portions of the Yellow and Orange alternatives. For this reason, further

analysis of Teal as an independent alternative was deemed unnecessary, as the vast majority of the

alternative route would be technically evaluated in the Level 3 Evaluation as part of either the Yellow or

Orange Alternatives. The only portion of the original Teal Alternative route not covered by either the Yellow

or Orange routes is a 5-mile section following the Copper Basin Railroad corridor, between the vicinity of San

Tan Valley and the planned North-South Study Corridor. Use of the Copper Basin segment in addition to the

North-South Study corridor could serve as an optional routing of the final Yellow Alternative should

challenges arise along its preferred route within Pinal County. The Teal Alternative and its relation to the

Yellow and Orange Alternatives is shown on Figure 76.

Based on the results of the Level 2 Evaluation, major conflicts, and public and agency coordination, the Green,

Orange, and Yellow Alternatives were identified as the Final Alternatives for the Level 3 Evaluation, as they would

best meet the purpose of and need for the project and provide the highest potential for successful implementation.

Each alternative consists of a unique routing, set of stations, and operating characteristics. However, the routes and

station locations of each Final Alternative were refined from earlier alternative definitions, based on major conflicts

indicated by technical analyses and input from public and agency stakeholders. The updated Green, Orange, and

Yellow Alternatives, as well as their shared common corridors, are described below and shown on Figure 77.

• Green Alternative—The updated Green Alternative still would use mostly I-10 right-of-way to create the

most direct route between Phoenix and Tucson. However, the refined route would follow UP right-of-way

from Phoenix into downtown Tempe, as opposed to an elevated route following Washington Street. The

route would then use UP Tempe Branch right-of-way south from Tempe to meet I-10 south of SR 202L and

use I-10 right-of-way from Chandler to Tucson. Within downtown Tucson, the route would follow UP rightof-way from I-10 to the southern System Hub at the historic Tucson Rail Depot.

Figure 76—Teal Alternative
56

Figure 77—Final Alternatives • Orange Alternative—This rail alternative also would use UP right-of-way near the Phoenix and Tucson

downtown areas. In addition, the route would still utilize the SR 202 Red Mountain Freeway, SR 101 Pima

Freeway, US 60 Superstition Freeway, Ellsworth Road, and I-10 rights-of-way. The alternative also assumes

the use of the planned North-South multimodal corridor, as well as an exclusive transit corridor planned in

the proposed Superstition Vistas development, which is located on land held in trust by the Arizona State

Land Department. The northern and most urban portion of the alternative route is assumed to be

constructed using an elevated guideway between north Tempe and Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport.

• Yellow Alternative—UP expressed major concerns about shared passenger service on the UP Sunset Route

in the southern portion of the corridor between Tucson and Eloy. The Sunset Route serves as one of UP’s

busiest and most vital freight routes, which would likely prevent effective shared use as a joint passenger

and freight corridor. The shared southern section of the alternative was eliminated due to this conflict, as

other viable routes existed within the same corridor. However, the UP Phoenix Subdivision remained a

viable connection between Eloy and Phoenix, which resulted in a reconfiguration of the Yellow Alternative.

The redefined alternative assumed use of the UP Phoenix Subdivision corridor north of Eloy and the I-10

corridor from Eloy to Tucson. This revised rail alternative would be built entirely at-grade on or adjacent to

UP right-of-way from Phoenix to Eloy within the Southeast Branch of the UP Phoenix Subdivision, as well as

I-10 right-of-way between Eloy and Tucson. In the Tucson downtown area, the alternative again would

follow UP right-of-way to the historic Tucson Rail Depot. The alternative would use UP right-of-way but

would not use UP freight track.

The Final Alternatives share several common corridors, within which the Green, Orange, and Yellow routes would

utilize the same general routes. These sections include the UP Phoenix subdivision right-of-way between downtown

Phoenix and Tempe, the I-10 right-of-way between Eloy and Tucson, and the UP Sunset Route in downtown Tucson.

In addition, the Final Alternatives include extensions into the West Valley in the Phoenix metropolitan area (to

Surprise along the BNSF Railway line on Grand Avenue and to Buckeye along the UP Wellton Branch and to Tucson

International Airport south from downtown Tucson along the UP Nogales Branch. As with the Conceptual

Alternatives, the extensions do not materially influence the alignment decision between the Tucson and Phoenix

metropolitan areas, but do represent critical corridors within the two major metropolitan areas for commuter rail

services and for regional linkages to other metropolitan areas.
57

Route Segments

The routes of each Final Alternative were subdivided into segments for the purpose of continued evaluation, in the

same way that the Conceptual Alternatives were segmented for the Level 2 Evaluation. As shown on Figure 78,

segments were created based on potential transition points between the remaining alternatives, in order to ensure

flexibility in defining the preferred alternative route. As an example, the Yellow Alternative route is comprised of

route segments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. This segmented evaluation also creates the possibility of route options to the

Preferred Alternative, which could prove necessary if detailed future analysis brings to light a major conflict that

prevents the preferred route from being viable.

Each route segment was defined as the corridor centerline of a 1-mile-wide corridor and is detailed in Appendix H:

Level 3 Evaluation. As part of the Level 3 Evaluation, segments were screened using the more detailed route

centerline where possible and the wider 1-mile corridor for more high-level evaluation criteria. Route segments are

part of the Green, Orange, and Yellow Alternatives. The previously defined western extensions from downtown

Phoenix to Surprise and Buckeye, and the extension from downtown Tucson to Tucson International Airport, are

also included as part of the Final Alternatives. Other than as part of the travel forecasting effort, the extensions were

not considered in the Level 3 Evaluation.

Potential Stations

The potential station areas of each Final Alternative were identified initially using those of the Green, Orange, and

Yellow Conceptual Alternative segments. However, several of those stations were moved or refined in shaping the

Final Alternatives, based on the reconfiguration of Conceptual Alternative routings and input from affected agencies.

All Final Alternatives assume the same stations along shared route segments in Phoenix and south of Eloy. The

station locations were defined mainly as general vicinities, such as the intersection of a roadway and alternative

route segment. Some stations, however, such as downtown Phoenix and downtown Tucson system hubs, were

identified more narrowly. All Final Alternative station areas are shown on Figure 79.

Table 33 describes the potential stations of each Final Alternative. Although described by general location, the

Level 3 Evaluation screened each station as either a 3-mile-radius catchment area or more specific location

depending on the evaluation criterion. The 3-mile-radius catchment area differs from the catchment size used for

both the Initial Screening and Level 2 Evaluation but was necessary for the more advanced ridership modeling that

took place at this stage for both commuter and intercity travelers.

As with earlier levels of analysis, potential station locations were only evaluated as a means to gauge the

performance of an alternative route and to inform routing decisions on the preferred alternative. The evaluation in

no way prevents a technically lower scoring station from being carried forward as part of the preferred alternative

route. Station types were also assigned in order to determine operational characteristics for evaluation purposes,

such as speed and travel time, for local and express service of each alternative. Express services would serve only

regional and system hub stations, while local services would serve all station areas.

Figure 78—Route Segments—Level 3 Evaluation
58

Figure 79—Potential Stations—Level 3 Evaluation Table 33—Potential Station Areas—Level 3 Evaluation

Station ID Station Name General Location (Not Exact) Community Station Type

1 Phoenix Union Station Union Station—3rd Ave & UP PHX Subdivision Phoenix System Hub

2 PHX Sky Train (UP) 44th St & UP PHX Subdivision Phoenix Regional

3 North Tempe Rural Rd & SR 202L Tempe Local

4 Downtown Tempe 5th St & UP PHX Subdivision Tempe Local

5 Downtown Mesa Country Club Dr & UP PHX Subdivision Mesa Local

6 West Chandler Chandler Blvd & UP Tempe Branch Chandler Regional

7 Mesa—Country Club Gilbert Rd & US 60 Mesa Local

8 Gilbert North Gilbert Rd & UP Southeast Branch Gilbert Local

9 Mesa—Power Rd Power Rd & US 60 Mesa Local

10 Gilbert South Williams Field Rd & UP Southeast Branch Gilbert Local

11 PHX-Mesa Gateway Airport Ellsworth Rd & Pecos Rd Mesa Regional

12 Queen Creek Ocotillo Rd & UP Southeast Branch Queen Creek Regional

13 San Tan Valley Bella Vista Rd & UP Southeast Branch San Tan Valley Local

14 Superstition Vistas Planned Activity Center Superstition Vistas Local

15 Casa Grande Florence Blvd & I-10 Casa Grande Regional

16 Coolidge Northern Ave & UP Southeast Branch Coolidge Regional

17 Coolidge-Florence SR 287 & Adamsville Rd Florence Local

18 Eloy (I-10) Alsdorf Rd & I-10 Eloy Local

19 Eloy (UP) Milligan Rd & UP Southeast Branch Eloy Local

20 Eloy (North-South) Milligan Rd & North-South Freeway Eloy Local

21 Tangerine Rd Tangerine Rd & I-10 Marana Regional

22 Orange Grove Rd Orange Grove Rd & I-10 Marana Local

23 Tucson Tucson Amtrak—4th Ave & UP Sunset Route Tucson System Hub

*The general locations of stations are provided for basic orientation and to distinguish between stations in close proximity, and are not meant to represent

exact positions or specific sites

*Assigned station types are preliminary at this stage for basic service assumptions

Operating Assumptions

Operating parameters, such as speed and station-tostation travel times, were determined for the local

commuter and express intercity services of each Final

Alternative, for both preliminary service and system

planning and the Level 3 Evaluation. Estimates for travel

time were based on the specific routings and station

locations of each Final Alternative. Specifically,

calculations were a factor of route length, curvature, and

contextual speed limitations, as well as the number and

distance between stations, acceleration and

decelerations rates, and station dwell times. In addition,

the speed and travel times for commuter and local

services at this level were determined by a high-level “string-line” operations analysis that gauged the effect of

potential service conflicts along the Final Alternative routes.

Figure 80—French TGV
59

Similar to the Level 2 Evaluation, operating assumptions for local commuter or intercity express trains differed

depending on the number of stations included for each service. Local commuter trains were assumed to serve every

station along the route, and express intercity trains were assumed to stop only at locations designated as regional

stations. Operating assumptions are detailed in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

3.3.2 Level 3 Evaluation

As described previously, the Green Alternative was initially selected and presented to the public as a Final

Alternative. However, ongoing discussions with GRIC staff and officials resulted in the removal of the alternative

from further consideration at the onset of the Level 3 technical analysis.

• Green Alternative—The Green Alternative was originally included among the Final Alternatives because it

carried some support from agencies and the public. In addition, much of the technical analysis in the AA

considered the Green Alternative along with the Yellow and Orange. Once the route was further defined for

Level 3 consideration and some of the potential issues were identified, extensive discussions were begun

with the GRIC to assess the level of concern about possible layouts within the community. A major portion

of the alternative assumed the widening of the existing I-10 easement through the jurisdiction of the GRIC.

More refined analysis of the corridor and coordination with GRIC cultural resources staff indicated that the

widening of I-10 would require additional Tribal land and have significant impacts on sensitive Tribal

traditional cultural and historic properties. The introduction of a new mode, such as rail, in the I-10 corridor

would also be incompatible with existing agreements between ADOT and GRIC for transportation in the

corridor. In addition, the I-10 through GRIC is planned for future highway expansion, which would prohibit

construction of a passenger rail system within the highway median due to safety and access concerns. The

removal of the Green Alternative from the study was

accepted by the GRIC Tribal Council, with the

understanding that complementary transit connections to

GRIC would be included as part of the preferred

alternative.

The Level 3 Evaluation analyzed the remaining two Final

Alternatives using individual evaluation criteria within seven

general measurement categories. The general measurement

categories used for the Level 3 analysis include community

acceptance and accessibility, environmental impacts, financial

feasibility, ease of implementation, operating characteristics,

mobility, and safety. An overview of criteria and measures are

included in Table 34. Unlike preceding levels of analysis, the “ease

of implementation” criterion is considered as a separate

measurement category for the Level 3 Evaluation. This

determination was made since Level 3 represents the final

alternative screening prior to determination of the preferred

alternative (Figure 81) and the ease of the eventual

implementation of the preferred alternative holds greater

significance at this stage of evaluation.

Table 34—Criteria Overview—Level 3 Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Description Evaluation Measure

Community Acceptance and Accessibility

Compatibility with local plans Effect of the alternatives on existing or proposed plans within the

corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Compatibility with underlying

property ownership

Level of alternative negotiation required with independent agencies/

nations/companies

1-mile-wide route segment

Compatibility of station areas Compatibility of local community station area development/plans with

transit-supportive urban design principles

General station vicinity

Existing population Existing population within station area 3-mile station catchment

Populations served Existing employment within station area 3-mile station catchment

Future population within station area 3-mile station catchment

Future employment within station area 3-mile station catchment

Existing minority population within station area 3-mile station catchment

Existing low-income population within station area 3-mile station catchment

Existing elderly population within station area 3-mile station catchment

Environmental Impacts

Noise receptors Sensitive noise receptors which may be impacted within corridor 1-mile-wide route segment

Historic/cultural/archeological

resources

Sites registered with the State Historic Preservation Office within

corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Sites registered with the Arizona State Museum within corridor 1-mile-wide route segment

Water resources Wetlands, flood plains, rivers, washes, and arroyos which may be

impacted within corridor

1-mile-wide route segment

Wildlife corridors Number of wildlife corridors crossed as identified in the Arizona

Missing Linkages report and stakeholder workshops and assessments

1-mile-wide route segment

Biological resources Quantified biological resources within corridor using the Arizona Game

and Fish Department SHCG tool

1-mile-wide route segment

Automobile reduction Reduction in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions as

result of alternative operations

Complete alternative route

Financial Feasibility

Operating cost (commuter) Operating cost/year for commuter rail portion of service Complete alternative route

Operating cost (intercity) Operating cost/year for intercity rail portion of service Complete alternative route

Capital cost Capital costs, including track, stations, rolling stock, maintenance yard,

etc.

General alignment

Ease of Implementation

Ease of implementation Relative costs of building route, including potential property

acquisition, construction challenges, public support, and negotiations

General alignment

Operating Characteristics

Predictability and dependability Anticipated reliability of route compared to baseline condition General alignment

Mobility

Ridership potential Total alternative ridership based on FTA STOPS model Complete alternative route

Transit/pedestrian connectivity Quality of connections to local transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities General station vicinity

Commuter travel time Commuter travel time based on stringline analysis Complete alternative route

Intercity travel time Intercity travel time based on stringline analysis Complete alternative route

Safety

Major conflicts Estimate of at-grade railroad crossings needed for rail alternatives General alignment

Injury and fatality reduction Reduction in automobile fatalities and injuries based on FTA STOPS

model

Complete alternative route

Figure 81—Level 3 Evaluation
60

The Level 3 Evaluation is described at a summary level throughout this section. The general measurement

categories, individual evaluation criteria, screening methodology, and explanation of results for each Final

Alternative are included. The evaluation criterion scores for each Final Alternative are documented in tables. Scores

highlighted in green are meant to indicate a higher or more positive measure compared to scores highlighted in red.

For example, a green evaluation criterion score assigned to the Yellow Alternative and a red score assigned to the

Orange Alternative indicates that the Yellow Alternative performed “better” than the Orange Alternative for that

individual evaluation criterion.

In general, the Level 3 Evaluation analysis was conducted at more detail than previous levels, as more detailed

investigations were carried out of the routes and station locations for each Final Alternative. This is especially true in

terms of environmental impacts, potential ridership, and financial feasibility. Other higher level evaluation criteria

were measured at a similar scale to the Level 2 Evaluation. However, these broader assessments were adequate in

distinguishing between the Final Yellow and Orange Alternatives. Details of the Level 3 Evaluation are described in

Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Level 3 Evaluation Alternatives

Based on input received by GRIC staff and officials and a ruling by the GRIC Tribal Council and subsequent

determination by the project team, only the Orange and Yellow Alternatives (Figure 82) were screened as part of the

Level 3 Evaluation and analyzed as part of the companion Tier 1 EIS document.

Figure 82—Final Orange and Yellow Alternatives
61

Community Acceptance and Accessibility

Screening methods used to evaluate alignment segments and station locations within the community acceptance

and accessibility measurement category are described in this section. The individual criteria used to determine the

category score are detailed in this section and include compatibility with local plans, compatibility with underlying

property ownership, compatibility of station areas, and populations served.

Compatibility with Local Plans

Compatibility with local plans is a general assessment of how well each route conforms to local transportation plans

within the study area. The more compatible an alternative, the more likely the potential development of the

alternative would meet local transportation goals and receive support from local communities along the route.

Classifications of compatibility level and alternative scores are summarized below and listed by alternative in

Table 35. The compatibility with local plans for each complete alternative route was classified as either compatible,

compatible with difficulties, or incompatible.

• Compatible (C)—An alternative alignment was considered to be compatible if it was identified in local plans

consistent with the intent of the project or if the route was located in an existing or planned major

transportation corridor. Examples of compatible portions of a route include I-10, US 60, and the planned

North-South Freeway Corridor.

• Compatible with difficulties (D)—An alternative alignment was considered to be compatible with difficulties

if it was not entirely reflected in local plans, would not create significant complications, or if some portions

of the route would not be located in an existing or planned major transportation route while some of the

route would require substantial negotiation.

• Incompatible (I)—An alternative alignment was considered to be incompatible if it would impact an already

built condition, if it is not reflected in local plans, and if major portions of the route would not be located

within existing or planned major transportation corridors.

The Yellow and Orange Alternatives were both considered compatible as they are either reflected as transportation

corridors in adopted plans or are entirely located within existing major transportation corridors. This Yellow

Alternative compatibility score differs from the Level 2 Evaluation, as the Yellow Alternative route assumed the use

of the UP Sunset Route mainline during the Level 2 Evaluation. Since the southern portion of the Yellow Alternative

between Eloy and Tucson was reconfigured to follow I-10 right-of-way, the level of negotiation required with UP was

considered much less substantial.

Table 35—Compatibility with Local Plans

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Compatibility with local plans Effect of the alternatives on existing or proposed plans within the

corridor

C C

C = Compatible

Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership

Compatibility with underlying property ownership is meant to gauge, in qualitative terms, how difficult the

development of a Final Alternative would be in terms of the property owner that currently owns the necessary rightof-way for construction. Considerations include the actual cost of acquiring the land required, as well as the level of

alternative negotiation necessary with the property owner. The more compatible an alternative, the more easily

needed rights-of-way could be obtained or used without substantial negotiation or cost. Classifications of

compatibility level and alternative scores are summarized below and listed by alternative in Table 36.

• Compatible (C)—An alternative alignment was considered to be compatible with existing property

ownership if its development would require little to no negotiation with independent agencies, nations, or

companies. For example, the Orange Alternative would be located completely within existing or planned

public rights-of-way.

• Compatible with difficulties (D)—An alternative alignment was considered to be compatible with difficulties

if a portion of the route would be incompatible with underlying property ownership while the remainder

would be at least partially compatible, requiring at least a moderate level of negotiation with independent

agencies, nations, or companies. For example, the redefined Yellow Alternative is primarily located in publicowned rights-of-way in its southern portion between Eloy and Tucson but would require negotiation with

UP to utilize rights-of-way within the UP Phoenix Subdivision.

• Incompatible (I)—An alternative alignment was considered to be incompatible if major portions of the route

were considered incompatible with underlying property ownership, requiring a substantial level of

negotiation with independent agencies, nations, or companies.

Table 36 summarizes the compatibility score for each alternative. The Orange Alternative was considered

compatible as it would be located entirely within public-owned rights-of-way and would not require any significant

negotiation. The Yellow Alternative was considered compatible with difficulties since it would utilize public rights-ofway between Eloy and Tucson but would necessitate some negotiation with UP for its northern portion. This Yellow

Alternative score differs from the Level 2 assessment, which assumed the use of UP rights-of-way for the entire

alternative route.

Table 36—Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Compatibility with underlying

property ownership

Level of alternative negotiation required with independent agencies/

nations/companies.

C D

C = compatible D = compatible with difficulties
62

Compatibility of Station Areas

Compatibility of Station Areas is a valuation of the local jurisdiction’s ability to properly accommodate a future

station area through local development plans, zoning ordinances, and commitment to transit-supportive urban

design. The more compatible a planned station area is within a community, the more likely the station will be

successful at producing ridership and benefiting the local community. A quantitative score for each station area

along a Final Alternative’s route was determined though a “Community Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit,”

which is described further in Section 3.2.2 and detailed in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation. Although a similar process

to the compatibility of station area measure used in the Level 2 Evaluation, this level differs as assessment methods

were more technical, station areas have been refined, and the evaluation sought to distinguish between two

alternatives as opposed to seven.

The community readiness assessment used meetings with local development staff, a self-assessment by local

development staff on their community’s policies, and a review of local plans and ordinances to develop a weighted

numerical score for each station location. Scores were determined using the criteria of land use, mobility and

connectivity, activity center building design, housing affordability, parking, and the ability of a community to

accommodate a station area through general plans, zoning codes, and other official documents. For the purpose of

the Level 3 Evaluation, the score of each station area along a route was averaged to determine a quantitative score

for each Final Alternative. The numbered scores were then aggregated and classified into a six point scale

represented by letter grades, with “A” being the most transit receptive and “F” the least transit receptive. Table 37

shows the average score and letter grade for all the station areas located along the Orange and Yellow Alternatives.

The stations located along the Yellow Alternative were considered more compatible, since the majority of stations

included in the alternative would be located in denser downtown areas more amenable to a rail station. The Orange

Alternative received a slightly lower score, since most of the stations unique to the Orange Alternative are located

either adjacent to major freeways or in greenfield areas on undeveloped land.

Table 37—Compatibility of Station Areas

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Compatibility of station

areas

Compatibility of local community station area development/plans with

transit supportive urban design principles

D C

31 34

Populations Served

Populations served is a measure of the number and composition of people that would have access to each Final

Alternative through the station locations located along each route. The higher the number of people in each

category, the more opportunity the service has to attract ridership from that demographic group.

Table 38 shows the breakdown of populations served, including existing and future population and employment, as

well as the existing minority, low-income, and elderly populations. Quantitative measures were determined using a

3-mile-radius station district to represent a catchment for both local commuter and intercity services, as well as

demographic data by traffic analysis zones (TAZ) from the FTA STOPS model for existing and future population and

employment (2008 and 2035). Census 2010 data was used for environmental justice populations. The 3-mile-radius

catchment size differs from the 1/2-mile catchment used for the Level 2 Evaluation, since the 3-mile catchment is

more appropriate for estimating commuter and intercity demand with the more sophisticated FTA STOPS modeling

tool used at this level, and overlap between catchments was less of a concern with only two alternatives.

Table 38—Populations Served

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Populations served Existing population within station area district 717,329 851,713

Existing employment within station area district 726,212 796,426

Future population within station area district 1,027,518 1,188,103

Future employment within station area district 939,520 1,036,490

Existing minority population within station area district 404,114 481,916

Existing low-income population within station area district 265,145 296,018

Existing elderly population within station area district 85,161 73,592

Environmental Impacts

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alignment segments and station locations in terms of

environmental impacts. (A more complete environmental review for the Final Alternatives can be found in the

companion Tier I EIS for this project.) The individual measures used to determine the general category score are

organized into two general groups discussed in this section—those that measure the impact on specific resources

and those related to automobile emissions reduction:

• Resources impacted

 Potential noise receptors

 Historic, cultural, and archeological resources

 Wetlands, floodplains, rivers, washes, and

arroyos

 Wildlife corridors

 Biological resources

• Automobile emissions reduction

 Reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions

 Reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions

 Reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions

 Reduction in particulate matter (PM) emissions

Potential Noise Receptors

Potential noise receptors provide an indication of the level of potential disruption the sound of an alternative’s

operation could cause to residences, parks, and other public gathering places along a route. Increases to adverse

noise effects on adjacent neighborhoods and challenges to the implementation of an alternative from the public

would be expected to increase along with an increased number of noise receptors impacted.

Figure 83—Burrowing Owl
63

The Final Alternatives were evaluated in this category by totaling the number of first and second level sensitive noise

receptors, as defined by the EPA, within 1/2 mile of each route segment’s centerline. Table 39 summarizes the total

number of noise receptors impacted within the route segments of each Final Alternative. These totals differ from

the Level 2 Evaluation, as the routes of both the Orange and Yellow Alternatives were modified prior to Level 3

Evaluation.

Table 39—Potential Noise Receptors

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Potential noise receptors Number of first and second level sensitive noise receptors within 1/2 mile of

route

54,215 52,827

Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources

Assessing the number of historic, cultural, and

archeological resources located in close proximity to

an alternative’s route is one method to gauge the

number of potential challenges the development of

that alternative could face. For the purpose of this

evaluation, the numbers of registered historic,

cultural, and archeological resources within 1/2 mile

of each route segment were recorded, using

information from both the Arizona State Historic

Preservation Office and the Arizona State Museum.

Table 40 summarizes the total number of resources

impacted within the route segments of each Final

Alternative according to both information sources.

Values again differ from the Level 2 Evaluation, since the Orange and Yellow Alternative routes were both refined

prior to Level 3 Evaluation and additional information was made available through the Arizona State Museum.

Table 40—Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Historic, cultural, and

archeological resources

Number of resources registered with the State Historic Preservation Office

within 1/2 mile of route

111 144

Number of sites registered with the Arizona State Museum within 1/2 mile of

route

562 551

Water Resources

The potential of each Final Alternative to harmfully impact environmentally sensitive aquatic areas was assessed by

quantifying the effects of each route on wetlands, floodplains, rivers, washes, and arroyos. The acreage or linear feet

of each surface water type that exists within 1/2 mile of each route segment’s centerline was calculated. The total

impacted acres of wetlands and floodplains and total feet of linear water features (rivers, washes, arroyos) were

compiled separately using readily available geographic information system (GIS) data from Federal Emergency

Management Agency, counties within the study area, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The total water

resources impacted within each Final Alternative corridor are shown in Table 41. Affected wetland acres are

substantially different from those shown in the Level 2 Evaluation because U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sources

were updated prior to the Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 41—Water Resources

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Water resources Wetlands (in acres) within 1/2 mile of route centerline 1,538 1,105

Floodplains (in acres) within 1/2 mile of route centerline 9,944 9,485

Rivers, washes, or arroyos (in linear feet) within 1/2 mile of route centerline 1,910,872 1,480,187

Wildlife Corridors

The number of wildlife corridors within 1/2 mile of each route segment centerline was measured using information

from the Arizona Wildlife Missing Linkages report prepared by Arizona Game and Fish Department. Areas of

“potential linkage zones” throughout the state that are deemed to be particularly sensitive to wildlife populations

are identified in the report. Table 42 shows the number of linkage zones or corridors that fall within or intersect

each Final Alternative.

Table 42—Wildlife Corridors

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Wildlife corridors Number of wildlife corridors crossed as identified in the Arizona Missing

Linkages report prepared by Arizona Fish and Game Department

6 5

Biological Resources

The impact of each route segment on biological resources and conservation potential within the study area was

measured using the Arizona Game and Fish Department‘s 2011 SHCG tool. The SHCG gauges conservation potential

on six levels, as described previously in Section 0. A GIS-based method was used to quantify the overall conservation

potential within 1/2 mile of each route segment centerline. Table 43 summarizes the quantitative score of biological

resources associated with the route segments of each Final Alternative. Details of scoring and calculation methods

for biological resources are documented in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 43—Biological Resources

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Biological resources Quantity of biological resources within 1/2 mile of centerline based on sixpoint scale using the Arizona Game and Fish Department Species and Habitat

Conservation Guide

207 202

Figure 84—Potential Cultural Sites
64

Automobile Emissions Reduction

The development of a commuter and intercity rail

service in a predominantly automobile-based

region would be expected to divert a percentage

automobile trips to commuter or intercity train

trips, which in turn would reduce total automobile

VMT and corresponding automobile based

emissions.

Ridership forecasts for the corridor were estimated

using the FTA STOPS tool. The STOPS model

outputs include the estimated reduction in daily

VMT that would be expected as a result of rail

service operations. Standard greenhouse gas emissions factors were applied to the daily VMT reduction created by

each Final Alternative to gauge the potential environmental benefit each service would produce as a result of

reducing automobile use. The daily reductions of nitrous oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic

compounds (VOC), and particulate matter (PM) created by the Orange and Yellow Alternatives are shown in

Table 44. Complete results of the STOPS forecasts are discussed further later in this Section and detailed in Appendix

H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 44—Automobile Emissions Reduction

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Automobile emissions

reduction

Daily reduction of NOx emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

519 kg 516 kg

Daily reduction of CO emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

9,563 kg 9,507 kg

Daily reduction of VOC emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

342 kg 340 kg

Daily reduction of PM emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

6 kg 6 kg

Daily reduction of CO2 emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

243,504 kg 242,072 kg

Daily reduction of SO2 emissions as result of rail alternative based on FTA

STOPS model

2.4 kg 2.39 kg

Financial Considerations

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alignment segments in terms of financial feasibility.

The individual measures used to determine the general category score are discussed in this section and include

annual operating costs, capital costs, cost effectiveness, and right-of-way costs.

Costs at this stage are estimated at a high level but built upon the specific corridor context using the most

appropriate information available. The following assumptions were made for the development of the capital and

operating cost estimates:

• Average speed provided for local and express service planning will be used for each service level to calculate

fleet size. A total of 40 minutes (20 minutes at each terminal) for trains is allocated for terminal turn-back

time. One spare commuter train and one spare intercity train are assumed.

• Double track costs are estimated for all elevated segments and on at-grade segments identified by stringline

conflict locations. Rights-of-way for double track are assumed along the entire corridor to allow future

growth to occur to minimize future construction impacts.

• Train sets will consist of DMUs with four vehicles for commuter train sets and eight vehicles for intercity

train sets.

• Bridges, such as those across canals, streets, and some washes, are assumed to be 200 feet or less in length.

Some bridges across freeways, washes, and wide roadways are assumed to be between 200 feet and 300

feet in length. Major bridges are estimated on a cost-per-linear-foot basis.

• Universal crossovers consist of four turnouts arranged in sets of two to form single crossovers in opposite

directions. Crossovers allow trains to cross from one track to another and are located at terminal stations,

connections to servicing and maintenance facilities, and at intermediate locations in order to allow trains to

operate over only one track due to maintenance or a problem on the other track. It is assumed that

crossovers will be spaced 5 to 10 miles apart.

• At-grade highway/railroad crossings would be rebuilt for higher train speeds and multiple tracks in

accordance with federal and state regulations. Each at-grade crossing would be equipped with medians and

quadrant gates (to prevent motorists from driving around the gates), constant warning predictors, concrete

panel crossing surfaces, and all required signage and graphics.

• All alternatives assume the use of the existing westbound frontage road to the north and east of I-10 from

Picacho to Grant Road in Tucson. Property acquisition or additional access will be required for properties

impacted by loss of the frontage road. Reconstruction of Red Rock traffic interchange and Missile Base Road

were included in cost estimates as well as new roadways providing access for Park Link Drive (proposed in

the I-8—Tangerine design concept report ) and APS Power Plant Access Road. Ina Road and Ruthrauff Road,

currently under design, will accommodate the passenger rail alignment.

• Positive and centralized train control costs are included and consist of cab signaling and automatic train

protection and supervision.

• Passenger stations will consist of system hub stations located at terminals, regional stations at key junction

points, and local stations located along the system. Local stations located in freeway rights-of-way will

include pedestrian crossings and stairs/elevators for passenger access.

• Unit costs are based upon experience, industry articles, and costs which have been rounded up after

allowing for inflation.

• Contingency of 40 percent has been added to the construction cost to reflect the planning level of the cost

estimates.

• Right-of-way costs are included in these estimates and reflect anticipated acquisition for each alternative

based on the best understanding of underlying property impacts and ownership (e.g., UP internal policy of

50-foot separation between passenger and freight tracks).

Figure 85—Train Bypassing Roadway Congestion
65

Annual Operating Costs

Annual operating costs is an estimate of the costs associated with running the proposed services based upon the

service characteristics previously detailed. The estimated costs are approximated for the commuter and intercity

portion of the service assuming eight intercity cars and four commuter cars. The number of needed cars has been

updated from earlier operating cost estimates based on more precise service analysis conducted at this stage.

Estimated service assumptions used to calculate operating costs are shown in Table 45 and Table 46, and a

breakdown of operating costs for the Orange and Yellow Alternatives are shown in Table 47 and Table 48.

Table 45—Estimated Weekday Revenue Service Assumptions—Orange Alternative

Train Type Trip Length Weekday 1-way

Trips per Day

Weekday

Mileage

Annual

Revenue Miles

Intercity 128.5 16 2056 534,560

Commuter 128.5 56 7196 1,870,960

Table 46—Estimated Weekday Revenue Service Assumptions—Yellow Alternative

Train Type Trip Length Weekday 1-way

Trips per Day

Weekday

Mileage

Annual

Revenue Miles

Intercity 119.8 16 1916.8 498,368

Commuter 119.8 56 6708.8 1,744,288

Table 47—Estimated Operating Costs—Orange Alternative

Vehicle Type Unit Unit Cost Quantity Estimated

O&M Cost

Intercity Cost/ vehicle mile $35.75 534,560 $19,108,000

Commuter Cost/ vehicle mile $35.75 1,870,960 $66,877,000

$85,985,000

Table 48—Estimated Operating Costs—Yellow Alternative

Vehicle Type Unit Unit Cost Quantity Estimated

O&M Cost

Intercity Cost/ vehicle mile $29.79 498,368 $14,845,000

Commuter Cost/ vehicle mile $29.79 1,744,288 $51,958,000

$66,803,000

Annual operating and maintenance cost estimates are based upon the 2010 National Transit Database vehicle mile

and train/bus hour costs, inflated by 3 percent per year to 2013. Station operating costs reflect a percentage of the

associated capital cost. The unit cost for the Orange Alternative has been inflated by 50% to take into account higher

operating speed and structures assumed for this rail system.

Table 49 summarizes the overall operating cost for intercity and commuter service by alternative, where the Yellow

Alternative is shown to have a lower overall operating cost. The primary reason for the lower operating cost is the

shorter length of the Yellow Alternative. Detailed Operating and Maintenance Cost calculations are included in

Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 49—Annual Operating Costs

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Annual operating costs Operating cost per year for commuter rail portion of service (2014 dollars) $66,877,000 $51,958,000

Operating cost per year for intercity rail portion of service (2014 dollars) $19,108,000 $14,845,000

Capital Costs

Capital cost estimates for rail improvements were prepared consistent with the level of detail available for each

proposed alternative. Considerations included infrastructure improvements and annual operating and maintenance

costs based upon an assumed intercity and commuter rail operating plan. The capital cost estimates are presented

in current year U.S. dollars and were developed for initial base year operations (2020). The estimates were prepared

using standardized unit prices based on current railroad industry unit prices. The estimated cost for intercity and

commuter rail stations, train equipment, and yard and maintenance facilities are also included in the capital cost

estimate at a parametric level. The estimated capital costs for the Orange and Yellow Alternatives are shown in

Table 50 and Table 51, respectively.

Figure 86—Tucson Streetcar Groundbreaking
66

Table 50—Estimated Capital Costs (in FTA Standard Cost Category Format) — Orange Alternative

FTA Major Standard Cost Categories (SCC)

Base Year

Cost without

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Allocated

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Dollars Total

(x000)

10 Guideway & Track Elements $3,291,156 $297,301 $3,588,456

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $70,833 $135,137 $205,970

30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs $160,000 $108,109 $268,109

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $614,884 $162,164 $777,048

50 Systems $362,710 $135,137 $497,847

Construction Subtotal (10—50) $4,499,583 $837,847 $5,337,430

60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $51,620 $108,109 $159,729

70 Vehicles $400,000 $135,137 $535,137

80 Professional Services $454,262 $454,262

Subtotal (10—80) $5,405,466 $1,081,093 $6,486,559

90 Unallocated Contingency $1,081,093

Total (10—90) $7,567,652

Table 51—Estimated Capital Costs (in FTA Standard Cost Category Format) — Yellow Alternative

FTA Major Standard Cost Categories (SCC)

Base Year

Cost without

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Allocated

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Dollars Total

(x000)

10 Guideway & Track Elements $1,466,063 $111,935 $1,577,997

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $38,333 $63,963 $102,296

30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs $148,000 $63,963 $211,963

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $449,471 $95,944 $545,415

50 Systems $356,060 $79,953 $436,013

Construction Subtotal (10—50) $2,457,927 $415,758 $2,873,685

60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $120,760 $127,926 $248,686

70 Vehicles $368,000 $95,944 $463,944

80 Professional Services $251,450 $251,450

Subtotal (10—80) $3,198,138 $639,628 $3,837,765

90 Unallocated Contingency $639,628

Total (10—90) $4,477,393

The capital cost estimates in 2013 dollars, excluding any finance charges, are $7.6 billion for the Orange Alternative

and $4.5 billion for the Yellow Alternative. Table 52 summarizes this measure, where the Yellow Alternative is the

less costly alternative. Complete calculations and breakdowns for capital cost are included in Appendix H: Level 3

Evaluation.

Table 52—Capital Costs

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Capital costs Capital costs, including track, stations, rolling stock, maintenance yard

(2014 dollars)

$7,568,000,000 $4,477,000,000

Cost Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness measure is a calculation based on the estimated operating cost and the anticipated ridership,

where the cost per person can be estimated. This analysis utilizes operating costs and does not account for

offsetting fare box revenues. Because this measure is a ratio of cost to riders, the most financially effective operating

route is able to be identified. Table 53 details the breakdown of cost effectiveness, where the Yellow Alternative is

more cost effective.

Table 53—Cost Effectiveness

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Cost effectiveness Annual operating cost per annual commuter rail passenger (2014 dollars) $15.99 $10.37

Annual operating cost per annual intercity rail passenger (2014 dollars) $15.38 $14.73

Right-of-Way Costs

As described in Section 3.3.2., the routes of the Orange and Yellow Alternatives were analyzed in greater detail

during this level of evaluation. As a result of the more defined routes, an estimated cost for right-of-way acquisition

based on the potential impacts from each alternative was calculated. The estimate used unit costs for the following

categories of property impacts:

• Residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Institutional

• Farm/vacant

The Orange Alternative was assumed to be located within the proposed North-South Freeway corridor for the

portion of its route through central Pinal County (Figure 17), therefore no right-of-way costs were assumed for that

shared portion of the alignment. Table 54 summarizes the overall right-of-way costs, where the Orange Alternative

has a lower cost than the Yellow Alternative, primarily due to the shared North-South Corridor portion. Details of

the right-of-way assumptions by category are provided in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 54—Right-of-Way Cost

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Right-of-way cost Cost of property acquisition necessary for development of rail

alternative (2014 dollars)

$62,135,000 $144,897,000
67

Ease of Implementation

Ease of implementation is a high-level qualitative assessment of the relative costs and potential challenges

associated with the construction and development of a complete rail service along an alternative route. Specific

considerations include added costs due to unanticipated property acquisition, jurisdictional issues, major

construction challenges, lack of public support, and negotiations and disagreements with independent agencies and

organizations. Classifications of ease of implementation and criterion scores for each Final Alternative are

summarized below and in Table 55.

• High (H)—Minimal costs related to property acquisition and construction with general public

acceptance/support

• Moderate (M)—Moderate costs related to property acquisition and construction with some challenges

related to public acceptance/support

• Low (L)—Significant costs related to property acquisition and construction with some challenges related to

general public acceptance/support

The Orange Alternative received a lower score than the Yellow Alternative, since much of Orange Alternative route

would require elevated structure within the Phoenix metropolitan area, which substantially increases cost and

would likely face challenges to public acceptance and support. Although some property acquisition would be

probable for implementation of the Yellow Alternative, relative costs and public challenges would be expected to be

lower.

Table 55—Ease of Implementation

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Ease of implementation Qualitative evaluation of the relative costs of building route, including

property acquisition, construction challenges, public support, and

negotiations

L M

M = moderate L = low

This criterion is considered as its own general measurement category for the Level 3 Evaluation, as noted previously

and unlike preceding levels of analysis. Since Level 3 represents the last screening prior to the selection of the

preferred alternative, the ease of the eventual implementation of the preferred alternative holds greater

significance at this stage of evaluation and more information has been made apparent through investigations

conducted since the conclusion of the Level 2 Evaluation to make a more accurate qualitative assessment possible.

Operating Characteristics

This section describes the evaluation of Final Alternatives in terms of operating characteristics, which is based on the

single criterion of predictability and dependability.

Predictability and Dependability

Each Final Alternative was evaluated in terms of potential predictability and dependability by making a high-level

qualitative assessment of the reliability of passenger rail services along a route considering potential disruptions

from other transportation modes, such as automobiles or freight rail. The level of potential disruption to commuter

and intercity trains is directly correlated with the chance that passenger services along an alternative route could be

interrupted affecting optimal performance. For this measure, predictability and dependability is classified into one

of three categories as described in Table 56.

• High (H)—High level of reliability on corridor, including limited impacts from other transportation modes

• Moderate (M)—Moderate level of reliability on corridor, including potential impacts from other

transportation modes

• Low (L)—Low level of reliability on corridor, including the potential for significant impacts from other

transportation modes

The Yellow Alternative received a moderate score, since potential disruptions to rail service could exist due to

freight operations operating in the same corridor and the higher number of at-grade road crossings along the

alignment. The Orange Alternative would have fewer at-grade road crossings and fewer freight operations occurring

within its corridor

Table 56—Predictability and Dependability

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Predictability and

dependability

Anticipated reliability of route compared to baseline condition in regards

to impacts from other transportation modes such as automobile and

freight rail

H M

H = high M = moderate

Mobility

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alignment segments in terms of mobility. The

individual criteria used to determine the general category score are discussed in this section and include potential

ridership, reduction in automobile use, transit and pedestrian connectivity, and travel time.

Potential Ridership

Potential ridership is an estimation of the number of passengers that can be expected to use the local commuter

and express intercity services offered through the development of a rail alternative. A rail alternative with a higher

number of estimated passengers would be considered to have greater potential for success in terms of regional

mobility and financial performance than a rail alternative with a lower number of estimated passengers. For the

purposes of this study, potential ridership was forecasted using the FTA STOPS tool. The tool was designed

specifically to estimate ridership on fixed guideway systems. The development of STOPS evolved directly from the

federal requirement established in the Final Rule on major capital investments in MAP-21

8

, which is to provide a

simplified method that project sponsors can use to quantify the measures of “trips-on-project” and changes in VMT

that are required as part of AA and EIS documents. Ridership forecasts were produced for each Final Alternative

using the FTA STOPS tool and socio-economic TAZ data produced by the Arizona statewide AZTDM-2 model.

Assumptions included standard mode of access and catchment areas for station areas, as well as maximum speed

calculations based on DMU vehicle technology, route curvature, speed limitations, and segment length between

stations. In addition, forecasts used revised Arizona State Demographer socio-economic forecasts for the threecounty study area.

8

 MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act) was enacted in 2012 to provide funding for surface transportation programs.

MAP-21 emphasizes system performance based analysis as part of project planning and funding decisions, including the requirement to

determine potential ridership and changes in VMT related to proposed transit projects.
68

FTA STOPS model outputs for each Final Alternative include year 2010 and 2035 estimates for average daily total

ridership, local commuter and intercity ridership, ridership breakdown by trip purpose, reduction in automobile

VMT and vehicle hours traveled (VHT), greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and safety information, including

fatality and injury reduction factors. Appendix H includes a detailed explanation of the modeled transportation

effects of the Orange and Yellow Alternatives, including FTA STOPS documentation, calculation methods, and

additional ridership characteristics.

Estimates for year 2035 were used for the purpose of the Level 3 Evaluation. For purposes of this analysis, trips of

less than 50 miles were defined as commuter trips, whereas trips greater than that length were considered intercity

trips. Daily estimated ridership characteristics of each Final Alternative are summarized by route and in Table 57

through Table 59. As indicated, the Yellow Alternative has greater passenger potential for all ridership categories,

except for intercity trips of over 50 miles and terminal-to-terminal trips between the Phoenix and Tucson system

hub stations.

Table 57—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Trip Type

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Daily route level

ridership (FTA STOPS)

Total ridership of alternative route (2035) 18,080 20,060

Home-based-work ridership (2035) 14,610 15,540

Home-based-other ridership (2035) 3,000 3,050

Non-home-based ridership (2035) 470 470

Table 58—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Trip Distance

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Daily route level

ridership (FTA STOPS)

Commuter ridership (-40 mile trips) (2035) 13,940 16,700

Intercity ridership (+40 mile trips) (2035) 4,140 3,360

Ridership between Phoenix—Tucson (2035) 930 720

Table 59—Potential Ridership—Route Level—Transit Dependents

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Daily route level

ridership (FTA STOPS)

Transit dependent ridership (2035) 3,240 3,790

Daily station boardings and passenger volumes by route location for the Orange and Yellow Alternatives are shown

on Figure 87 and Figure 88. Table 60 and Table 61 show the station-to-station travel times generated by the FTA

STOPS model based on the input travel times from the AZTDM2 model.

Figure 87—Station Boardings and Link Volumes—Orange Alternative
69

Figure 88—Station Boardings and Link Volumes—Yellow Alternative Table 60— FTA STOPS Stations and Travel Times—Orange Alternative

Local Service Express Service

From To

Travel Time

(min) From To

Travel Time

(min)

Buckeye Extension Phoenix Union Station Phoenix Sky Harbor 6.5

Buckeye Goodyear 10.4 Phoenix Sky Harbor Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 26

Goodyear Avondale 8.7 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Florence Arizona Farms 13.5

Avondale Phoenix Union Station 16.1 Florence Arizona Farms Marana Tangerine 23

Surprise Extension Marana Tangerine Tucson Amtrak 15.5

Surprise El Mirage 5.2

El Mirage Peoria 6.7

Peoria Glendale 6.1

Glendale Phoenix Union Station 10.3

Mainline

Phoenix Union Station Phoenix Sky Harbor 6.5

Phoenix Sky Harbor Tempe Scottsdale Rd 6

Tempe Scottsdale Rd Mesa Country Club Dr 8

Mesa Country Club Dr Mesa Power Rd 6.5

Mesa Power Rd Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 7

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Superstition Vistas 9

Superstition Vistas Florence Arizona Farms 5.5

Florence Arizona Farms Florence-Coolidge 6

Florence-Coolidge Eloy 12

Marana Tangerine Marana Orange Grove 6.5

Marana Orange Grove Tucson Amtrak 7

TIA Extension

Tucson Amtrak Tucson International 5.9
70

Table 61— FTA STOPS Stations and Travel Times—Yellow Alternative

Local Service Express Service

From To

Travel Time

(min) From To

Travel Time

(min)

Buckeye Extension Phoenix Union Station Phoenix Sky Harbor 7

Buckeye Goodyear 10.4 Phoenix Sky Harbor Queen Creek 28

Goodyear Avondale 8.7 Queen Creek Downtown Coolidge 17

Avondale Phoenix Union Station 16.1 Downtown Coolidge Marana Tangerine 28

Surprise Extension Marana Tangerine Tucson Amtrak 13

Surprise El Mirage 5.2

El Mirage Peoria 6.7

Peoria Glendale 6.1

Glendale Phoenix Union Station 10.3

Mainline

Phoenix Union Station Phoenix Sky Harbor 7

Phoenix Sky Harbor Tempe 6

Downtown Tempe Downtown Mesa 7

Downtown Mesa Downtown Gilbert 6

Downtown Gilbert Cooley Station 5.5

Cooley Station Queen Creek 5.5

Queen Creek San Tan Valley 7

San Tan Valley Downtown Coolidge 11

Downtown Coolidge Eloy 11

Eloy Marana Tangerine 17.5

Marana Tangerine Marana Orange Grove 7.5

Marana Orange Grove Tucson Amtrak 6

TIA Extension

Tucson Amtrak Tucson International 5.3

Reduction in Automobile Use

As discussed earlier in this Section , the implementation of a rail alternative offering commuter and intercity service

would be expected to shift a segment of travelers from automobile trips to commuter or intercity train trips, thus

reducing overall automobile use in the area served by the alternative route. The FTA STOPS model estimated a

reduction in daily automobile use that would be anticipated as a result of the development of each Final Alternative.

Table 62 shows the daily reduction in VMT and VHT resulting from the Orange and Yellow Alternatives.

Table 62—Reduction in Automobile Use

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Reduction in automobile

use

Daily reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as result of rail

alternative (FTA STOPS)

570,268 566,914

Daily reduction in automobile vehicle hours traveled (VHT) as result of rail

alternative (FTA STOPS)

17,655 17,522

Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity

Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity is a valuation of each

potential station area’s quality of connection to local

transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. A station location

that offers adjacent transit and non-motorized facilities

would provide greater ease of access to a potential

passenger, without the need to rely on automobile travel.

A quantitative ranking of all potential station areas along

the routes of the Orange and Yellow Alternatives was

determined through a “last-mile” connections assessment,

which considered the number and quality of adjacent light

rail, streetcar, and local bus services, as well as bicycle

lanes and pedestrian sidewalk facilities. Letter grades were

assigned to individual stations based on their overall ranking—with “A” offering the greatest number of transit and

pedestrian connections and “F” the lowest number of connections. The complete station ranking and calculation

methodology of the assessment is detailed in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation. The average letter grades of the

potential station locations included in each Final Alternative are shown in Table 63.

Table 63—Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Transit and pedestrian

connectivity

Assessment of the quality of local transit, pedestrian, and bicycle

connections to the potential station areas of each alternative

A B

Figure 89—Denver Transit Center
71

Travel Time

As part of the SDP efforts, preliminary stringline diagrams were developed depicting assumed commuter and

intercity rail operations for each Final Alternative. These stringline diagrams are used to determine potential conflict

points where a passing track would be needed in a single track configuration or where the train schedule would

need to be adjusted to maximize efficiencies and reduce the potential for operational delays. The stringline

diagrams were used to estimate terminal-to-terminal travel times for commuter and intercity trains traveling

between the Tucson and Phoenix system hub stations, given the operational constraints assumed in the service

development analysis. A summary of commuter and intercity travel times is summarized in Table 64. The stringline

development process and actual diagrams are detailed in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 64—Travel Time

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Travel time Estimated commuter travel time from Tucson to Phoenix based on

alternative “stringline” analysis

1:45 1:35

Estimated intercity travel time from Tucson to Phoenix based on

alternative “stringline” analysis

1:30 1:23

Safety

This section describes the screening methods used to evaluate alignment segments in terms of safety. The individual

criteria used to determine the general category score are discussed in this section and include potential rail and

automobile conflicts and fatality and injury reduction.

Rail and Automobile Conflicts

A passenger rail system would be faced with automobile conflict points along its route in those sections where the

route is constructed at-grade and the passenger rail track crosses a roadway. Despite safety measures for

automobiles and pedestrians, such as railroad crossing gates, warning lights and signs, etc., a rail alternative with a

high number of at-grade roadway crossings would be considered to have higher exposure, relative to a rail

alternative with fewer at-grade crossings. For the purposes of the Level 3 Evaluation, the total number of at-grade

crossings that would exist along each route segment was calculated. Table 65 summarizes the total number of atgrade crossings included in the route segments of each Final Alternative. As indicated, the completed Yellow

Alternative would have a much greater number of potential conflict points due to its at-grade construction along the

entire route. However, rail and automobile conflict mitigation plans would be addressed as part of future studies.

Table 65—Potential Rail and Automobile Conflicts

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Rail and automobile

conflicts

Number of at-grade crossings that would exist within alternative segment

as rail conflict points

20 76

Fatality and Injury Reduction

Overall passenger safety in the corridor will improve if passenger rail service diverts automobile traffic to rail. With

the proper infrastructure in place to support it, rail is inherently more reliable than other land and air-based modes.

A highway accident rate is more than twice that of rail, where the fixed operational environment means there are

fewer variables and less chance of collisions between vehicles. Based on these conditions, a decrease in VMT as a

result of rail operations would be expected to reduce the likelihood of automobile crash related injuries and

fatalities. The factor by which the operations of each Final Alternative would decrease automobile injuries and

fatalities was determined for the Level 3 Evaluation. The factors were calculated by applying commonly accepted

industry fatality and injury reduction factors (per 1 million VMT) to the daily reduction in automobile VMT produced

by each alternative. The reduction in fatalities and injuries are shown in Table 66. Calculation methods and

assumptions are detailed in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Table 66—Fatality and Injury Reduction

Criteria Description Orange Yellow

Fatality and injury

reduction

Automobile fatality reduction as result of rail alternative, per 1 million

VMT (FTA STOPS)

0.00741 0.00737

Automobile injury reduction as result of rail alternative, per 1 million VMT

(FTA STOPS)

0.1112 0.1105

3.3.3 Level 3 Evaluation Technical Results

The Level 3 Evaluation screened the Orange and Yellow Alternatives against various quantitative and qualitative

criteria within seven general measurement categories. The individual criteria included in the Level 3 Evaluation

examined each alternative as a whole. The specific screening methods and results of each criterion and general

measurement category are detailed in the previous sections of this report.

Table 67 shows the general measurement category scores of each alternative, summarized into an overall

assessment of each alternative in terms of community acceptance and accessibility, environmental impacts, financial

feasibility, ease of implementation, operating characteristics, mobility, and safety. The relative scores for each

criterion were summarized on a scale of 1 to 2 (2 being desirable and 1 being less desirable), and shown graphically

using “Harvey Ball” symbols as = 2 and = 1. The category of ease of implementation was added at the Level 3

Evaluation to more comprehensively evaluate the alternatives. When all measurement category scores are

evaluated, the Yellow Alternative ranks higher than the Orange Alternative.

The Yellow Alternative scored the highest overall because it provides access to existing population and employment

centers, has lower capital and operating costs, shorter travel time, and fewer environmental impacts. The Orange

Alternative has significantly higher costs and lower anticipated ridership. The Yellow Alternative would require close

coordination with UP, but assumptions at this level were designed to minimize these potential conflicts.
72

Table 67—Overall Level 3 Evaluation Results

Criteria Orange Yellow

Community Acceptance and Accessibility

Compatibility with Local Plans

Compatibility with Underlying Property Ownership

Compatibility of Station Areas

Existing population within station area district 717,329 851,713

Existing employment within station area district 726,212 796,426

Future population within station area district 1,027,518 1,188,103

Future employment within station area district 939,520 1,036,490

Existing minority population within station area district 404,114 481,916

Existing low-income population within station area district 265,145 296,018

Existing elderly population within station area district 85,161 73,592

Environmental Impacts

Potential noise receptors within corridor 54,215 52,827

Resources registered with the State Historic Preservation Office within corridor 111 144

Resources registered with Arizona State Museum within corridor 562 551

Wetlands (in acres) within corridor 1,538 1,105

Floodplains (in acres) within corridor 9,944 9,485

Rivers, washes, or arroyos (in linear feet) within corridor 1,910,872 1,480,187

Wildlife corridors crossed as identified in Arizona Missing Linkages report

Species and Habitat Conservation Guide resources within corridor 207 202

Reduction in Nox emissions (FTA STOPS Model) 519 kg 516 kg

Reduction in CO emissions (FTA STOPS Model) 9,563 kg 9,507 kg

Reduction in VOC emissions (FTA STOPS Model) 342 kg 340 kg

Reduction in PM emissions (FTA STOPS Model) 6 kg 6 kg

Financial Feasibility

Annual operating cost for commuter rail portion of service (2014 dollars) $66,877,000 $51,958,000

Annual operating cost for intercity rail portion of service (2014 dollars) $19,108,000 $14,845,000

Capital cost (2014 dollars) $7,568,000,000 $4,477,000,000

Annual operating cost per annual commuter rail passenger (2014 dollars) $15.99 $10.37

Annual operating cost per annual intercity rail passenger (2014 dollars) $15.38 $14.73

Right-of-way cost (2014 dollars) $62,135,000 $144,897,000

Ease of Implementation

Ease of implementation

Operating Characteristics

Predictability and dependability

Mobility

Total daily ridership 18,080 20,060

Daily ridership between Phoenix-Tucson 930 720

Reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (FTA STOPS Model) 570,268 566,914

Transit and pedestrian connectivity

Tucson to Phoenix commuter travel time 1:45 1:35

Tucson to Phoenix intercity travel time 1:30 1:23

Safety

At-grade crossings 20 76

Daily reduction in fatalities (FTA STOPS) 0.00741 0.00737

Daily reduction in injuries (FTA STOPS) 0.1112 0.1105

 = highest ranking = lowest ranking

3.3.4 Level 3 Public Outreach Results

As during the Level 2 Evaluation, an outreach effort was carried out to gauge public opinion on the Final

Alternatives. Engagement methods were similar to those used previously, including informational booths at

community events, media releases, and a study survey that asked members of the public their opinion among the

Final Alternatives as well as desired attributes of a rail system. Study team members staffed an information booth at

over 15 community events and festivals throughout the study area between March 8 and May 15, 2014. At the

conclusion of the outreach survey period on June 30,2014, 5,085 completed surveys had been received either via

mail-in, forms completed at community events, or online submissions on the ADOT project website

As part of the survey, the public was asked their preference among the Final Alternatives as well as to comparatively

rank desired system attributes. These survey results are shown below. The Green Alternative is included in the

public preference results, as the determination to remove the Green Alternative from further consideration was

made after the launch of the public outreach and survey

period.

Final alternatives—public preference

Yellow Alternative—46 percent

Green Alternative—32 percent

Orange Alternative—22 percent

Final alternative attributes—public preference

Travel time

Service reliability

Travel cost

Construction cost

Property impact

Environmental impact

As indicated during earlier public engagement phases, surveys and comments received during the outreach period

suggest strong support for a rail system between Tucson and Phoenix. Survey results show the Yellow Alternative to

be the most popular with the public by a fairly large margin. Service

reliability and travel time were also specified by the public as the most

important desired attributes of a rail service. Individual community event

details and complete survey results are included in Appendix H: Level 3

Evaluation.

Paired Attribute Comparison

For the Level 3 outreach, an additional technique was used to collect more

focused information about project priorities from the survey participants.

In cooperation with the University of Arizona, the survey instrument used

in the Level 3 Evaluation was modified to include a paired comparison of

some of the proposed rail alternatives’ attributes to assess preferences in

more depth than a simple question about preferred alternatives. The

surveys distributed included random questions about the critical features

or characteristics of the project compared to each other to test the

strength of the preferences when asked in different contexts. For

Figure90 Information Booth

Figure91 Outreach Survey
73

example, a comparison of travel speed to the cost of the trip might assign a higher priority to trip cost, but a

comparison of travel speed to reliability of service might suggest travel speed is more important. By comparing the

results among select pairings, the priorities for various features among the participants can be expected to emerge.

While the survey was not designed to be statistically valid, the large number of responses adds a level of confidence

to the results and provides valuable insight into how people see the project.

On a straight preference basis, among the three Final Alternatives, the Yellow Alternative is supported by 46 percent

of the nearly 4,000 participants who responded to that question. The Green was preferred by 32 percent and the

Orange by 22 percent. In addition to the overall preference, reviewing the attribute comparisons produced the

results shown in Table 68.

Table 68—Paired Comparisons of Select Features

Policy Attribute Questions and Possible Answers

Responses by

Survey

Answer

Percentage of

Responses by

Question

Policy Q1—Travel Time vs. Cost of Construction

Provide fastest overall travel time 1203 79.20%

Limit cost of construction 316 20.80%

Policy Q2—Reliability vs. Impacts to Private Property

Limits service disruptions and maintains schedule reliability 1208 79.63%

Limits impacts to private property 309 20.37%

Policy Q3—Cost of Trip vs. Cost of Construction

Limiting the cost of the trip 1301 78.71%

Limiting the cost of construction 352 21.29%

Policy Q4—Reliability vs. Cost of Trip

Limits service disruptions and maintains schedule reliability 1352 81.59%

Limits the cost of a trip 305 18.41%

Policy Q5—Cost of Construction vs. Impacts to Private Property

Limiting cost of construction 545 54.12%

Limiting impacts to private property 462 45.88%

Policy Q6—Cost of Trip vs. Travel Time

Limits cost of trip 425 42.00%

Provides fastest overall travel time 587 58.00%

The results in Figure 92 show the significance of the variables among the respondents. Reliability is the clear priority

for those responding to the survey, while construction cost and impacts to private property are less important. More

detail about this process can be found in Appendix H: Level 3 Evaluation.

Figure 92—Passenger Rail Public Priorities

3.3.5 Level 3 Agency Outreach Results

As during the Level 2 Evaluation, the agencies within the corridor that are affected by the Final Alternatives were

contacted to discuss the details of the analysis and obtain input from the local perspective. The project continued to

retain a highly favorable rating, but the emphasis now has become more specific to local needs and opportunities.

Presentations have been made not only to staffs at cities and towns, but in a number of cases to city councils that

have broader interests in the benefits or challenges presented by a proposed new passenger service. This input

proved invaluable in understanding how the project is being perceived by the affected agencies and what their

primary interests are. Major outcomes of agency coordination are summarized below.

• Officials from several communities located along the Yellow Alternative route expressed their support for

the Yellow Alternative over the Orange Alternative.

• Several affected agencies voiced their preferences for variations to Final Alternative routings within their

jurisdictions that serve or avoid critical locations, which could result in optional routings as part of the

preferred alternative.

• Multiple stakeholders stressed the critical importance of airport connections to every regional airport within

the study corridor, emphasizing the need for either direct or complementary high-capacity transit

connections.

• As noted previously, coordination with GRIC resulted in the determination to remove the Green Alternative

from further analysis based on likely right-of-way challenges, cultural and historical impacts, and low

ridership potential.

• Ongoing coordination with UP encouraged the possibility that a rail alternative which utilizes UP Phoenix

Subdivision right-of-way could prove viable, if the system and service design of the preferred alternative

avoids disruptions to existing freight operations.

0.54

0.2

0.16

0.05

0.06

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Reliability Travel Time Travel cost Construction Cost Impacts
74

3.4 Preferred Alternative

3.4.1 General

This section outlines the selection of the preferred alternative, which consists of a unique route, set of stations, and

selected operating characteristics. Decisions regarding the definition of the preferred alternative were made with

the consideration of technical evaluation, public outreach results, and agency coordination.

• Technical input—The Yellow Alternative performed best in the Level 3 technical screening, as detailed in

Section 3.3.2. The Yellow Alternative would provide access to existing population and employment centers

and has lower capital and operating costs, shorter travel time, and fewer environmental impacts compared

to the Orange Alternative. The Orange Alternative has significantly higher costs and lower anticipated

ridership. The Yellow Alternative would require close coordination with UP, but assumptions at this level

were designed to minimize these potential conflicts to existing freight operations.

• Public input—The 5,085 survey responses on the Final Alternatives, obtained during spring 2014 public

outreach, expressed a preference for the Yellow Alternative, followed by the Green and then Orange

Alternatives. The Green Alternative is included in the public preference results, as the determination to

remove the Green Alternative from further consideration was made after the launch of the public outreach

and survey period. In addition, responses on desired service attributes emphasized travel time and service

reliability, while minimizing concerns over construction cost and impacts to property and the environment.

• Agency input—Agency opinions on Final Alternatives were an essential consideration in the selection of the

Preferred Alternative route. Officials from several communities expressed support for the Yellow

Alternative, and multiple affected agencies voiced preferences for variations to routings within their

jurisdictions that serve or avoid critical locations. In addition, stakeholders stressed the importance of

airport connections, coordination with GRIC resulted in the removal the Green Alternative in addition to

right-of-way, ridership, and cultural property limitations, and discussions with UP encouraged the possibility

of a rail alternative using UP Phoenix Subdivision right-of-way if disruptions to existing freight operations are

avoided.

3.4.2 Preferred Alternative

A preferred alternative was determined based on the technical analysis presented in the AA, as well as agency and

public input. Based on the Level 3 Evaluation, which provided a technical overview of each Final Alternative, the

Yellow Alternative was the best performing alternative overall within five of the seven evaluation categories.

However, several potential historic and cultural resource issues were identified within route segments of the Yellow

Alternative based on analyses performed throughout the AA and major concerns expressed by stakeholders during

the agency outreach process. These resources may be subject to protection of Section 4(f)9 of the U.S.

Transportation Act which prevents impacts to these properties unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative. A

determination regarding whether properties protected by Section 4(f) will be impacted by the Yellow Alternative

would require a much more extensive and detailed analysis than is included in the scope of this study. Although

Yellow remains the Preferred Alternative for these unresolved portions of the Corridor; the option of using the

9

 Section 4(f) refers to section of U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requiring consideration of adverse impacts to park and

recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. Section 4(f) properties which could

be adversely impacted by a transportation project require supplemental evaluation and must be avoided if prudent and practical alternatives

exist.

Orange Alternative in these segments has been retained as a potential prudent and feasible alternative to impacting

properties protected by Section 4(f). It is important to note that the optional segments of the Orange Alternative

may also have properties protected by Section 4(f) that may require extensive analysis to make a decision regarding

a final alternative. The preferred Yellow Alternative is shown in Figure 93. The routing options are also detailed in

Figure 93 as insets.

Route Options Carried Forward

Optional routings are considered as potential solutions for issues identified along the Yellow Alternative. They could

be beneficial in identifying a Preferred Alternative in the Final Tier I EIS if the primary Yellow Alternative route

proves to be flawed. These re-routings are presented as options based on a high-level assessment of viability and

potential conflicts.

• Tempe Option—The locally preferred Yellow Alternative includes an optional routing through Tempe

because of the potential impact on historic properties adjacent to UP tracks. The optional routing would use

the portion of the Orange Alternative that follows SR 101L Pima and SR 202L Red Mountain freeway rightsof-way. It is shown as an inset in Figure 93.

• Pinal County Option— Figure 93 also shows a second optional routing for the Yellow Alternative in Pinal

County. Should the use of UP property not be feasible, this option would potentially utilize the portion of

the Orange Alternative that extends from Copper Basin Railroad along the planned multimodal North-South

Corridor to I-10 as described above in the discussion of the Teal Alternative under Final Alternatives.

In consideration of the technical evaluation results, public opinion gleaned from outreach results, and preferences

and concerns shared by agency stakeholders throughout the study area, the Yellow Alternative was ultimately

selected as the preferred alternative of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study—Tucson to Phoenix Alternatives

Analysis.
75

Figure 93—Preferred Yellow Alternative
76

4.0 Next Steps

4.1 Environmental Impact Statement

A Tier 1 EIS provides a NEPA-compliant document that includes the appropriate level of information to determine

corridor-level decisions and address related issues of concern. The Tier 1 EIS will document and confirm the purpose

and need, identify a range of alternatives to be analyzed (including alignments, technology, and service operations),

identify and develop evaluation criteria, document environmental impacts, identify a preferred alternative for the

corridor/study area alignment, and address component projects for a Tier 2 assessment to increase capacity for

travel along the selected corridor.

4.2 Service Development Plan

A service development plan provides a conceptual operations plan associated with a preferred alternative. The SDP

provides an operating plan (trip patterns, schedules, etc.), capital plan (vehicles, guideway, stations, etc.), cost

estimates, and ridership projections. In addition, the SDP includes implementation considerations such as a project

management plan, financial plan, maintenance plan, risk assessment, and stakeholder agreements.

4.2.1 Potential Implementation Segments

A typical service development plan also includes a concept for potential project construction phasing and

implementation. It is likely that the development of the Preferred Alternative in this Tucson to Phoenix corridor

would occur in individual segments following a standard practice of phased implementation. The likely phased

approach is due to many factors including the estimated capital costs associated with the development of the

Preferred Alternative, challenging infrastructure funding realities, and more immediate travel demand potential in

the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. Figure 94 displays the following possible segment implementation

concept:

• Tucson Commuter Service— Initial service between downtown Tucson and Marana

• Phoenix Commuter Service— Initial service between downtown Phoenix and Queen Creek

• Regional Phoenix Commuter Service— Regional service between downtown Phoenix and Coolidge

• Regional Tucson Commuter Service— Regional service between downtown Tucson and Coolidge

• Intercity Service— Intercity service between Tucson and Phoenix

• Future Extensions— Extensions from downtown Phoenix to Surprise and Buckeye, and from downtown

Tucson to Tucson International Airport

The potential implementation segments and phasing shown in Figure 94 are intended to represent one possible

approach at a high level. The Service Development Plan document will include a more detailed implementation

concept.

Figure 94—Potential Implementation Segments
STATION AREA PLANNING 

GUIDANCE FOR COMMUNITIES 

ADOT PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 

TUCSON TO PHOENIX 

November 26, 2013

Prepared by: 

AECOM 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CORRIDOR ..............................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 PURPOSE OF LAND USE/URBAN FORM GUIDANCE .................................................................................. 7 

1.4 HISTORY OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR ............................................... 8 

CHAPTER 2. STATION TYPOLOGY OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 11

2.1 STATION INFLUENCE AREA COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 11 

2.2 STATION TYPOLOGY AND HIERARCHY .................................................................................................. 11 

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM HUB STATION ............................................................................................... 14

3.1 STATION CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................... 14 

3.2 MODES OF ACCESS .......................................................................................................................... 16 

3.3 PROTOTYPICAL STATION FOOTPRINT AND STATION AREA PLAN ............................................................... 17 

CHAPTER 4. REGIONAL STATION ................................................................................................... 24

4.1 STATION TYPE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.2 MODES OF ACCESS .......................................................................................................................... 26 

4.3 PROTOTYPICAL STATION FOOTPRINT AND STATION AREA PLAN ............................................................... 27 

CHAPTER 5. LOCAL STATION ......................................................................................................... 33

5.1 STATION TYPE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................ 33 

5.2 MODES OF ACCESS .......................................................................................................................... 35 

5.3 PROTOTYPICAL STATION FOOTPRINT AND STATION AREA PLAN ............................................................... 36 

CHAPTER 6. TRANSIT EMERGENT STATION LOCATION ................................................................... 41

6.1 STATION TYPE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................ 41 

6.2 MODES OF ACCESS .......................................................................................................................... 42 

CHAPTER 7. STATION AREA PLANNING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................ 45

7.1 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 45 

7.2 MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY ........................................................................................................... 47 

7.3 BUILDING DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 50 

7.4 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ................................................................................................................. 52 

7.5 PARKING ........................................................................................................................................ 53 

CHAPTER 8. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 56

8.1 PLANNING PROCESS FOR COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................. 56 

8.2 PUBLIC POLICY ACTIONS ................................................................................................................... 58 
ii 

8.3 PHASING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTIONS ......................................................................................... 61 

8.4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................ 65 

8.5 POTENTIAL INCENTIVES FOR INFILL, REVITALIZATION, AND REDEVELOPMENT ............................................. 66 

8.5.1 Public Financing for Site Acquisition and Consolidation, Infrastructure, Parking and 

Pedestrian/Streetscape Amenities ...................................................................................................... 66

8.5.2 Historically-Used Funding Tools .............................................................................................. 66

8.5.3 Emerging Community Development and Infrastructure Financing Tools ............................... 70

8.5.4 Infrastructure Financing Tools Used in Other States .............................................................. 71

CHAPTER 9. OTHER RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 72

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: bqAZ Recommendations for Passenger Rail .................................................................................. 1 

Figure 2: Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2 

Figure 3: Universe of Station Locations Considered ..................................................................................... 4 

Figure 4: Community Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit ....................................................................... 5 

Figure 5: Station Influence Area ................................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 6: Rail Services at Various Station Types.......................................................................................... 12 

Figure 7: System Hub Station Footprint ...................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 8: Prototypical Station Area Plan – System Hub Station.................................................................. 20 

Figure 9: Station Area Development Phasing Perspective – System Hub Station ...................................... 21 

Figure 10: Regional Station Footprint ......................................................................................................... 29 

Figure 11: Prototypical Station Area Plan – Regional Station ..................................................................... 31 

Figure 12: Station Area Perspective – Regional Station ............................................................................. 32 

Figure 13: Local Station Footprint ............................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 14: Prototypical Station Area Plan – Local Station........................................................................... 39 

Figure 15: Station Area Perspective – Local Station .................................................................................. 40 

Figure 16: Public and Private Actions for Station Area Development ........................................................ 64 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Station Area Typology Overview ................................................................................................... 13 

Table 2: System Hub Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 19 

Table 3: Regional Station Characteristics .................................................................................................... 30 

Table 4: Local Station Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 38 

Table 5: Supportive Transportation Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 44 

Table 6: Partnering Agencies and Their Roles............................................................................................. 65 

 

iii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation 

APRCS Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study 

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 

bqAZ Building a Quality Arizona 

CDBG Community Development Block Grant 

CFD Community Facilities District 

DU Dwelling Unit 

EDA Economic Development Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAR Floor Area Ratio 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GPLET Government Property Lease Excise Tax 

LRT Light Rail Transit 

MAG Maricopa Association of Governments 

MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 

PARA Planning Assistance for Rural Areas 

SCC Sustainable Communities Collaborative 

STLUIS MAG Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study 

TIF Tax Increment Financing 

TOD Transit-Oriented Development 

UP/UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 
1 

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Corridor 

1.1 Project Location and Background 

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study (APRCS) 

consists of an Alternatives Analysis/Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Service 

Development Plan to evaluate potential high-capacity transit improvements between the Tucson and 

Phoenix metropolitan areas, separated by approximately 120 miles (Figure 1). The proposed Tucson to 

Phoenix Passenger Rail Corridor (Corridor) comprises three counties: Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal, and is 

part of the larger Sun Corridor Megapolitan, one of the fastest growing locations in the United States 

identified by the Brookings Institution and Regional Plan Association in 2005 

Tucson and Phoenix are the two largest 

metropolitan areas in Arizona, representing 

about three-quarters of the state’s 

population. In addition, approximately 9 out 

of 10 jobs in the state are found in these two 

metropolitan areas. With recent population 

growth in the study area, several statewide 

and regional planning processes have 

identified a need for increased transportation 

capacity between the Phoenix and Tucson 

metropolitan areas. 

In March 2010, ADOT completed the Building 

a Quality Arizona (bqAZ) Statewide 

Transportation Planning Framework 

Program, which concluded that Arizona 

cannot address future congestion by 

continuing to rely exclusively on roadways to 

move people and goods. Rail offers a highly sustainable form of transportation that is more 

environmentally-friendly and a resource-sensitive method of moving goods and people. The concept of 

an intercity rail corridor between Tucson and Phoenix was further studied and recommended in the 

2011 Arizona State Rail Plan. This study, the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study, intends to 

investigate the benefit of this alternative mode of travel through the heart of the Sun Corridor and 

recommend a program for implementation. 

Transit Technologies 

To date, this study has gone through an extensive alternatives development and evaluation process 

where both regional bus and passenger rail (intercity and commuter rail) alternatives were analyzed 

between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas in the overall Alternatives Analysis/Tier 1 EIS 

document. The recommendation from that process is to implement regional passenger rail service 

Figure 1: bqAZ Recommendations for Passenger Rail 

2 

between Tucson and Phoenix, building first on initial commuter rail service to be implemented initially 

from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area southward into Pinal County. 

Station Typologies 

Four types of stations (system hub, regional, local, transit emergent) were identified for the corridor 

based on the unique southwestern context, existing and potential future growth patterns (including land 

uses and densities), and community needs and demands. These station types will be further discussed in 

more detail in later parts of this report. 

Figure 2: Study Area 
3 

Station Locations 

Figure 3 illustrates the universe of station locations considered. The range of preliminary station 

locations were initially identified through agency and public scoping meetings, and individual 

community meetings. These were evaluated in Tier 1 based on factors such as adequate population to 

support the station, travel demand, compatible adjacent land uses and densities, and existing transit 

connections. 

The Tier 2 evaluation of station locations included a three step process. The first step of this process 

included the “Station Area Planning Exercise” at the Corridor Support Team Meetings held in July and 

August 2012. The exercise served the purpose of: 

Gaining an understanding of urban form, land use, and transit connectivity elements that 

contribute to a rail transit-ready environment 

Illustrating public policy and private actions required to proactively prepare for rail transit 

Understanding regulatory and policy changes needed 

Understanding land use thresholds required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to 

obtain federal funding 

The second step included completing the “Community Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit”, a selfassessment tool that was distributed to all communities in the study area that could potentially host a 

future passenger rail station (Figure 3). This assessment served to review each community’s plans and 

policies for land use, mobility, connectivity, building design, housing affordability and parking that are 

required to support and enable successful station area development. Cities and towns were encouraged 

to involve representatives from their Planning/Community Development, Economic Development, 

Housing, Transportation, Public Works, and Real Estate departments in the self-assessment. 

The third step of this process included individual meetings with candidate station location communities 

along the rail corridor alternatives where the Project Team discussed the output of the “Community 

Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit” prepared and submitted by the community, updated the 

community on the alternatives evaluation progress, and elaborated on the implications of a possible 

station location selection in that municipality. 

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 

The bqAZ Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program 2050 travel demand projections 

indicate that traffic congestion in this corridor could increase the travel time between Tucson and 

Phoenix to five hours (more than double the average travel time today) by 2050 if significant 

improvements are not implemented, including some combination of roadway and alternative modes. 

This includes construction of the ultimate build-out of the Interstate 10 (I-10) corridor to ten lanes (5-

lanes in each direction) between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas and construction of the 

proposed North-South corridor from I-10 in Eloy to the East Valley of the Phoenix metropolitan area. It is 

important, therefore, to begin conceptualizing alternative routes and modes to alleviate the congestion 

along this important artery. The ADOT Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study intends to develop 

passenger rail (both intercity and commuter rail) as a viable transportation option that fulfills the state’s 

4 

long range vision of providing safe, efficient, and sustainable transportation options that serve the needs 

and aspirations of its communities. 

Figure 3: Universe of Station Locations Considered 
5 

Figure 4: Community Readiness Assessment for Rail Transit 

6 

Figure 4 Continued. 
7 

The following goals and objectives have been developed to guide the station area planning process for 

potential station locations along the passenger rail corridor in the Sun Corridor: 

Provide a secure and safe station area vicinity for the users during the day and night 

Provide a safe and user-friendly station facility that incorporates supportive facilities such as 

concession areas, waiting rooms, restrooms, and ticket booths 

Provide aesthetically-pleasing and visually engaging surroundings that people will enjoy 

before/after their train ride 

Provide station facilities that are accessible and are ADA compliant 

Accommodate for safe and practical circulation methods between the various station 

components, parking, pick-up/drop-off areas 

Incorporate the use of sustainable planning, building, and implementation practices to ensure 

long-term use and cost-effectiveness, while also encouraging an environmentally-sensitive 

approach 

1.3 Purpose of Land Use/Urban Form Guidance 

The purpose of this Land Use/Urban Form Guidance Document is to provide a framework for station 

area planning that can be used by host communities (those with a station site selection) to develop 

plans for their specific station areas. This document is a tool that simplifies the approach to station 

planning and outlines the recommended criteria for the building of efficient, functional, and coordinated 

station areas along the passenger rail corridor. The guidance highlights the need for regional 

coordination and cooperation, and uses an integrated approach to transportation and land use. 

This document lays emphasis on the planning aspects of station area development for the four station 

types identified for the Sun Corridor. The guidelines will help to determine the station type appropriate 

for a host community based on several factors, including the maturity of a municipality’s community 

development pattern, the level of sophistication in its overall planning framework, the existing and 

planned local transit system, and other features that promote sustainability and an approach to smarter 

growth. As communities continue to grow in size and enhance the quality of activity within the station 

area, they may work with the operating/management agency of the system to “upgrade” to a higher 

level of station type, based on the recommendations made in this document. 

This document includes the following chapters: 

1. Introduction to the Corridor 

2. Station Typologies Overview 

3. System Hub Station 

4. Regional Station 

5. Local Station 

6. Transit Emergent Station Location 

7. Station Area Planning Principles 

8. Implementation Program Requirements 

9. Other Resources 

8 

As noted, the Land Use/Urban Form Guidance document begins with a brief description of the project 

location and background and discusses the history of the regional transportation facilities in the 

corridor. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the station typologies and station influence area 

components, and explains the hierarchy of the four station types. 

Chapters 3 through 6 discuss the station types in more detail and provide target station area 

characteristics, such as the mix of land use and development densities, building heights, recommended 

transit connections, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and provision of affordable housing. A 

prototypical station area plan has been developed for each of the station types to demonstrate the 

desired interrelationships between the passenger rail station and its surrounding urban context. 

Chapter 7 outlines the key station area planning principles that have been identified as the building 

blocks of a successful passenger rail station, and are recommended as a guide for communities in 

updating their general plans and in developing detailed specific area plans. 

Chapter 8 provides an implementation program with a step-by-step station area planning process, a 

phased approach for necessary public and private actions, and the agencies that should participate in 

the planning process. Potential incentives for encouraging infill, new development, and redevelopment 

in the station area core are also discussed in this chapter. 

Chapter 9 provides brief introduction to other similar resources that may serve as reference materials 

for communities preparing to plan for station areas within their jurisdiction. 

1.4 History of Regional Transportation Facilities within the Corridor 

The Tucson-Phoenix corridor is part of the Sun Corridor Megapolitan, and connects the two largest 

metropolitan cities in the state. The population in the three-county study area (Maricopa, Pima and 

Pinal counties) is expected to grow from approximately 5.2 million in 2010 to about 11.7 million in 2050, 

with the majority of the population growth expected to be centered on the I-10 corridor or the central 

“spine” though the Sun Corridor. The I-10 corridor is the main transportation corridor connecting 

Tucson and Phoenix, with planned widening up to 10 lanes (5 lanes in each direction). The Union Pacific 

(UP) Sunset Route mainline corridor generally follows the I-10 alignment from Tucson to Eloy, veering to 

the west through Pinal County and eventually paralleling the I-8 corridor toward Yuma. The UP Phoenix 

Subdivision connects the Sunset Route with the Phoenix metropolitan area, connecting to Wellton and 

Eloy on the western and eastern ends, respectively. 
9 

The historic Phoenix Union Station is located in downtown Phoenix just south of West Jackson Street 

between 3rd and 5th Avenues, and was previously used to serve intercity rail passengers for both the 

Southern Pacific Railroad and later Amtrak, but no passenger service is currently provided to Phoenix or 

nearby areas. The Union Station building is currently owned and occupied by a telecommunications 

company for stationing their wireless communications equipment. 

One of the historic rail 

depots in Tucson is 

located along Toole 

Avenue between 

Congress Street and 

Pennington Street in 

downtown, and was 

previously owned by 

the Southern Pacific 

Railroad. The City of 

Tucson purchased the 

depot in 1998 and 

restored the main 

depot building and the 

three adjacent 

buildings to their 1941 

architectural style, 

Phoenix Union Station 

Tucson Amtrak Station 

10 

completed in 2004. The depot currently serves as a passenger rail station for Amtrak’s Sunset Limited 

Route (connecting Florida to California). The Southern Arizona Transportation Museum is located on the 

west side of the rail depot. 

The other historic rail depot in Tucson, formerly of the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad, is located just 

south of Congress Street and east of I-10. The Phelps Dodge Mining Company extended its El Paso and 

Southwestern Railroad from El Paso to Tucson in 1912, and the depot was built in 1913. By 1924, the 

railroad was taken over by Southern Pacific, which did not need two Tucson depots, so this depot was 

closed after just 11 years of service. More recently, the old depot has been restored and is serving as a 

restaurant and office building. 

El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Depot 
11 

Chapter 2. Station Typology Overview 

2.1 Station Influence Area Components 

Station area planning involves designating the area within a 

five- to twenty-minute walk, or one-mile, of a transit station as 

a distinct type of place. The area within this one mile threshold 

is known as the “station influence area.” Actual boundaries will 

vary based upon the unique physical characteristics of each 

station area. Stations will be generally located at the centers of 

significant higher-density economic and cultural activity. In 

addition, each station area should have a well established 

network of pedestrian pathways connecting the station to 

nearby high-density residential and employment areas. Such 

pedestrian pathways should include supportive infrastructure, 

such as sheltered waiting areas, street furniture, low-scale 

lighting, shade, bike racks, and retail/service uses tailored 

towards pedestrian traffic. It is understood that for this 

corridor, the highest density station areas will primarily occur in the core of the Tucson and Phoenix 

metropolitan areas, however the intent is to stimulate mixed-use, medium- to high-density 

development within station areas along the entire corridor, including suburban and rural areas. 

The station area consists of (approximately) the 500 acres within the one-half mile surrounding a transit 

station, composed of the transit core and transit neighborhood. These areas are further surrounded by 

the transit-supportive area (not part of the station area). Transit geography is illustrated in Figure 4 and 

further defined below: 

Transit Core: First one-quarter mile, or approximately 125 acres, of the station area centered at 

the transit station; generally a five-minute walk from the station. 

Transit Neighborhood: Second one-quarter mile, or approximately 375 acres, of the station area 

surrounding the transit core; generally a 10-minute walk from the station. 

Transit Supportive Area: Next one-half mile radius around transit station (generally a 20-

minute+ walk), beyond the transit core and transit neighborhood, comprising an additional 

1,500 acres; often experiencing modest increases in density due to station proximity.

2.2 Station Typology and Hierarchy 

The following four station types have been developed for intercity and commuter rail service between 

Tucson and Phoenix. The station types have been defined by considering the unique southwestern 

context of the study area, the current and planned characteristics of Arizona communities (both urban 

and rural), combined with requirements based on service and access needs. The four identified station 

types include: 

Figure 5: Station Influence Area 

12 

1. System Hub Station 

2. Regional Station 

3. Local Station 

4. Transit Emergent Station Location 

Figure 6 illustrates the four station types and the corresponding passenger rail service associated with 

them. Intercity rail service is proposed to stop at the system’s hub and regional stations; commuter rail 

service can stop at all four station types. Characteristics of specific station types will be discussed in 

more detail in the following sections, including the provision of key information, such as the typical 

urban setting, employment/ commercial/residential land use types, typical transit patronage area, and 

typical transportation modes and parking types associated with each station type. An overview of these 

characteristics is presented in Table 1. 

Figure 6: Rail Services at Various Station Types 

Each of the four station types will have different transit connectivity characteristics, based on the urban 

context in which they are located, and the passenger patronage area associated with them. An overview 

of the general patronage area for each station type by location (urban or rural), generally available 

transit connections (light rail transit [LRT], modern streetcar, bus rapid transit [BRT], local and circulator 

bus system), bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and parking facilities have also been provided for 

each station type. Typical block sizes and development densities that support walkability within the 

station area, and enhance the attractiveness of the development are also discussed. 

Prototypical station area plans are provided for system hub, regional and local station types. These plans 

are not site-specific, and depict typical conditions present in the corridor. Each station type is composed 

of various land uses, facility types, amenities, and their relationships for access and circulation which 

remain constant; however, these components can be modified to fit site-specific conditions since each 

station area will present a different set of opportunities and constraints. The prototypical station area 

plans should only be used as a guidance tool to develop individual station area plans based on sitespecific conditions of host communities. 

Station Types 

System 

Hub 

Regional 

Station 

Local 

Station 

Transit 

Emergent 

Station 

Rail Service 

Intercity Rail ● ●

Commuter Rail ● ● ● ●
13 

Table 1: Station Area Typology Overview Station Type Typical Urban Setting Employment/ Commercial 

Land Use Types 

Residential Land Use 

Types 

Transit 

Patronage Area 

Typical Transportation Modes 

and Parking Types

System Hub Downtown/center of 

metropolitan area

Primary office, government, and cultural/sports/ entertainment center with supportive retail and services

High-density, multifamily housing 15 to 25 miles Intermodal facility/transit hub; major regional destination with 

high- quality feeder transit (light rail, streetcar, bus, circulator); potential park-and-ride location with structured parking integrated into mixed-use development

Regional Station Sub-regional downtown 

or major employmentcenter

Regional employment hub and major activity center (retail, services, education, medical, entertainment)

Mid- to high-density residential, often as part of mixed-use developments

10 to 15 miles May be a sub-regional 

destination on fixed-guideway transit corridor or sub-regional transit center with high quality feeder bus service, including local activity center circulator; potential park-and-ride location with structured parking

Local Station Suburban town center, 

master planned community mixed-use core, or historic downtown of rural community

Office/service/retail economic activity center, potential regional government service center 

Mid-density multifamily, and higherdensity single family (e.g., townhouses, row houses)

5 to 20 miles (suburban) 20 to 40 miles (rural) 

Local activity center linked with high quality feeder bus services (e.g., express bus, regional fixedroute bus routes); potential parkand-ride location with surface parking lots or decked parking

Transit Emergent Station Location

Center of a small town outside a major metropolitan area, or master planned community with mixeduse core, with significant surrounding growth potential

Office/service/retail center, potential civic service center; often a historic “Main Street” activity node 

Medium-density multifamily, possibly single family (e.g., row houses, patio homes)

20 to 40 miles Transit station with future 

connections to local feeder bus service, and regional bus transit with service to adjacent towns/cities; potential park-andride location with surface parking lots

14 

Chapter 3. System Hub Station 

A system hub station would generally be located at the 

heart of a major metropolitan area, typically a 

downtown, characterized by a high-density mix of 

housing and employment types, including: 

Corporate offices 

Government offices 

High-rise apartments and condominiums 

Regional civic uses 

Major mixed-use development 

Cultural and entertainment facilities 

Supportive retail and services 

Densities may be higher within a quarter-mile radius of 

stations than elsewhere. System hub stations would be 

served by both regional and commuter rail services, and 

would accommodate substantial intermodal connections 

to the local transportation network including fixedguideway transit (light rail, streetcar), buses, shuttles, 

taxis, cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. System hub stations 

typically attract ridership from within a 15- to 25-mile 

radius around the station. 

The general planning considerations for hub stations and the typical characteristics of the various modes 

of access are discussed below. System hub parameters are summarized in Table 2, presented at the end 

of the chapter. 

3.1 Station Characteristics 

Mix of Land Uses and Development Densities 

Within the first quarter-mile (Transit Core), typical land 

uses may include: 

Corporate offices 

Government offices 

Regional sports/entertainment 

Convention/conference facilities 

High-rise residential towers 

Within the next quarter-mile (Transit Neighborhood), typical land uses may include: 

Mid-high rise office towers 
15 

Mid-high rise residential towers 

Government/educational/employment/research campuses 

In the outer half-mile (Transit Supportive Area), typical land uses may include: 

Mid-rise residential towers 

Lofts/condominiums 

Apartments/townhomes 

Office/research park 

Medical facilities 

Lifestyle retail centers 

Other mixed-use developments 

Target Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/Building Heights 

3.0 – 5.0 FAR 

10 stories or more 

Station Footprint and Site Acreage 

Station Footprint – 1.4 to 1.7 acres 

Station Site Acreage – 6 to 8 acres 

Parking Requirements 

Multi-story parking structure or parking deck 

16 

3.2 Modes of Access 

A system hub station will serve corporate and government offices, sports and entertainment venues of 

regional significance, convention/conference facilities, mid-high rise residential towers, mid-high rise 

office towers, and educational/research campuses. Areas surrounding a hub station should be walkable 

and should provide access through a variety of transit and personal transportation modes, to encourage 

interaction and develop synergies between the different uses. Greatest priority should be given to 

pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, followed by transit connections. Use of private vehicles to access 

passenger rail facilities should be discouraged through measures such as provision of limited on-site 

parking; provision of kiss-and-ride facilities at rail stations in place of park-and ride facilities; and higher 

parking charges, among others. 

General Planning and Design Considerations 

Typical block size: 200’ to 400’ with pedestrian penetration every 200’ 

Maximum block perimeter: 1,200’

Study area reference: existing block sizes 

Downtown Phoenix: 340’ x 340’

Downtown Tucson: 360’ x 300’ 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 

Pedestrian pathways along all streets with shaded sidewalks, buffered from vehicular traffic by 

landscaping 

Mid-block plazas with pedestrian linkage to streets 

Pedestrian access to transit hubs from within a short (0-1 mile) distance 

Bike lanes and/or paths throughout the station area 

Bicycle access to transit hubs from within a moderate (1-5 mile) distance, which may be onstreet, off-street or a combination 

Transit Connections 

LRT 

LRT is a fixed-guideway rail transit that often operates in exclusive right-of-way with stops 

averaging every one mile, and more frequently, in higher-density activity centers 

Multiple routes serving regionally-significant activity and employment centers, high-density 

residential nodes 

Modern Streetcar 

Modern streetcar is a “lighter LRT” that often operates in mixed traffic in traditional traffic 

lanes, with stations averaging every half-mile, and more frequently in higher-density activity 

centers 

May provide local circulation, as well as commuting functions 

BRT/Express Bus 
17 

Long distance fixed routes operating in major transportation corridors with stops averaging 

one to three miles 

May operate in semi-exclusive right-of-way or mixed traffic 

Typically operates during peak periods only, or with less frequent mid-day service 

Local Bus 

All-day, fixed-route local arterial bus service with stops averaging every quarter-mile to halfmile 

May offer higher frequency during peak periods 

Accessible buses; articulated where necessary 

Circulator Bus 

Circulates within activity center and to adjacent neighborhoods 

Frequent stops (averaging every quarter-mile or less) 

Provides feeder or distribution service to and from transit centers, activity centers, or rail 

stations 

May have multiple routes connecting local activity nodes, parking and rental car facilities in 

the station district 

Vehicular Parking Facilities 

Multi-story parking structures/decks integrated into mixed-use developments 

Incorporate rental car agencies and carshare programs 

3.3 Prototypical Station Footprint and Station Area Plan 

A prototypical station area footprint has been developed for the system hub station, and is presented in 

Figure 7. The station footprint illustrates the passenger amenities and supporting activity spaces for the 

system hub station. Figure 7 (as well as subsequent prototypical station area footprints for the other 

station types) illustrates four rail tracks through the station, which is intended to show the need for both 

northbound and southbound sidings adjacent to platforms to allow freight trains, as well as passenger 

trains in skip stop operations to pass as passenger boarding/alighting occurs at stations. 

Table 2 provides a summary of the development characteristics for the areas surrounding a system hub 

station, including land use and activity types, FAR, building heights, development densities, and parking. 

It is recommended that communities refer to these development characteristics while formulating 

station area plans for their community. A prototypical station area plan for the system hub station is 

presented in Figure 8, which illustrates such development characteristics. 

Figure 9 illustrates a three-dimensional rendering of the system hub station and the surrounding 

development using the recommended build-out land uses and densities and includes key considerations, 

such as: 

1. Station is focus of mixed-use activity center 

2. Ability to phase-in higher density surrounding development 

3. All structured parking, with exception of small short-term surface lot 

4. Regional transit hub 

18 

Figure 7: System Hub Station Footprint 
19 

Table 2: System Hub Characteristics Influence Area Characteristics

Area Desired Land Use Mix Typical Land Uses Typical 

Building 

Heights 

Average 

Development 

Density 

Average 

Residential 

Density 

Parking Types 

Transit Core 

 1/4 mile radius 

from station 

 5-minute walk 

125 acres 

 Up to 75% employment  Up to 35% residential  Up to 10% other 

 Corporate offices  Government offices  Regional sports/ entertainment  Convention/conference facilities  High-rise residential towers 

10 stories or more 

3.0 – 5.0 FAR 100+ 

dwelling units (DU)/acre

 Multi-story 

structure 

Transit Neighborhood 

 1/2 mile radius 

from station 

 10-minute walk 

375 acres 

 Up to 60% employment  Up to 50% residential  Up to 15% other 

 Mid-high rise office towers  Mid-high rise residential towers  Government/educational/ 

employment/research campuses 

6 stories or more 

1.5 – 3.0 FAR 50 - 100 

DU/acre

 Multi-story 

structure 

Transit Supportive Area

 1 mile radius from 

station 

 20-minute walk  5-minute drive 

1,500 acres 

 Up to 40% employment  60% or more residential  15% or more other 

 Mid-rise residential towers  Lofts/condominiums  Apartments/townhomes  Office/research park  Medical facilities  Lifestyle retail centers  Other mixed-use developments

4 stories or more 

0.5 – 1.5 FAR 25 - 50 

DU/acre

 Short-term: 

surface lot 

 Long-term: 

parking deck 

20 

Figure 8: Prototypical Station Area Plan – System Hub Station 
21 

Figure 9: Station Area Development Phasing Perspective – System Hub Station 

22 

Development Phase 1 (Initial) Development Phase 2 Development Phase 3 Development Phase 4 (Buildout) 
23 

24 

Chapter 4. Regional Station 

A regional station would generally be located at a 

sub-regional downtown, a town center or a major 

employment center, characterized by a mix of the 

following uses, generally at somewhat lower 

densities and intensities than in system hub 

locations: 

Medium- to high-density residential and 

employment 

Mid-rise office and residential towers 

Office/medical/ educational/research 

campus 

Cultural and entertainment uses 

Supportive retail and services. 

Regional stations may be served by both the 

intercity and commuter rail service. They would 

serve as commuter hubs for the sub-regions of a 

metropolitan area, and may be served by multiple 

transit options, often including fixed-guideway 

regional transit (LRT, streetcar), high-frequency 

regional express bus or BRT, as well as local fixedroute bus service. Regional stations may also be 

served by park-and-ride facilities, usually taking the 

form of structured parking. In general, they may be 

less dependent on transit access and more 

dependent on parking than a system hub. Regional 

stations typically attract ridership from within a 10- 

to 15-mile radius around the station. 

The general planning considerations for regional 

stations and the typical characteristics of the 

various modes of access are discussed below. 

Regional station parameters are summarized in 

Table 3, presented at the end of the chapter. 

4.1 Station Type Characteristics 

Mix of Land Uses and Development Densities 

Within the first quarter-mile (Transit Core), typical land uses may include: 
25 

Mid-high rise office towers 

Mid-high rise residential towers 

Government/educational/employment/research/campuses 

Within the next quarter-mile (Transit Neighborhood), typical land uses may include: 

Mid-rise residential towers 

Lofts/condominiums 

Apartments/townhomes 

Office/research park 

Medical facilities 

Lifestyle retail centers 

Mixed-use developments 

In the outer half-mile Transit Supportive Area, typical land uses may include: 

Apartments/townhomes 

Row houses 

Office/research park 

Garden/office buildings 

Multi-use developments 

Target FAR/Building Heights 

1.0 – 3.0 FAR 

6 stories or more 

26 

Station Footprint, and Site Acreage 

Station Footprint – 0.9 to 1.15 acres 

Station Site Acreage – 5 to 6 acres 

Parking Requirements 

Multi-story parking structure or parking deck 

4.2 Modes of Access 

A regional station will serve mid- to high-rise office towers, mid- to high-rise residential towers, 

government/educational/research campuses, apartments/townhomes, medical facilities, retail centers, 

and mixed-use developments. Areas surrounding a regional station should be walkable and should 

provide access through a variety of transit and personal transportation modes, to encourage interaction 

and develop synergies between the different uses. Greatest priority should be given to pedestrian and 

bicycle connectivity, followed by transit connections. Use of private vehicles to access passenger rail 

facilities should be discouraged through measures such as provision of limited on-site parking, provision 

of kiss-and-ride facilities at rail stations in place of park-and ride facilities, and higher parking charges, 

among others. 

The general planning and design considerations for regional stations, and the typical characteristics of 

the various modes of access are discussed below. 

General Planning and Design Considerations 

Typical block size: 200’ – 400’ with pedestrian penetration every 200’ 

Maximum block perimeter: 1,200’

Study area reference (existing block sizes): Downtown Tempe – 340’ X 370’

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 

Pedestrian pathways along all streets with shaded sidewalks, buffered from vehicular traffic by 

landscaping 

Mid-block plazas with pedestrian linkage to streets 

Pedestrian access to transit hubs from within a short (0-1 mile) distance 

Bike lanes and/or paths throughout the station area 

Bicycle access to transit hubs from within a moderate (1-5 mile) distance, which may be onstreet, off-street or a combination 

Transit Connections 

LRT 

LRT is a fixed-guideway rail transit that operates in exclusive right-of-way with stops 

averaging every one mile, and more frequently, in higher-density activity centers 

Multiple routes serving regionally-significant activity and employment centers, high-density 

residential nodes 
27 

Modern Streetcar 

Modern streetcar is a “lighter LRT” that often operates in mixed traffic in traditional traffic 

lanes, with stations averaging every half-mile, and more frequently in higher-density activity 

centers 

May provide local circulation, as well as commuting functions 

BRT/Express Bus 

Long distance fixed routes operating in major transportation corridors with stops averaging 

one to three miles 

May operate in semi-exclusive right-of-way or mixed traffic 

Typically operates during peak periods only, or with less frequent mid-day service 

Local Bus 

All-day, fixed-route local arterial bus service with stops averaging every quarter-mile to halfmile 

May offer higher frequency during peak periods 

Accessible buses; articulated where necessary 

Circulator Bus 

Circulates within activity center and to adjacent neighborhoods 

Frequent stops (averaging every quarter-mile or less) 

Provides feeder or distribution service to and from transit centers, activity centers, or rail 

stations 

May have multiple routes connecting local activity nodes, parking and rental car facilities in 

the station district 

Vehicular Parking Facilities 

Multi-story parking structures/decks integrated into mixed-use developments 

Incorporate rental car agencies and carshare programs 

4.3 Prototypical Station Footprint and Station Area Plan 

A prototypical station area footprint for the regional station type is presented in Figure 10. The station 

footprint illustrates the passenger amenities and supporting activity spaces for the regional station. 

Table 3 provides a summary of the development characteristics for the areas surrounding a regional 

station, including land use and activity types, FAR, building heights, development densities, and parking. 

It is recommended that communities refer to these development characteristics while formulating 

station area plans for their community. A prototypical station area plan for the regional station is 

presented in Figure 11, which illustrates such development characteristics. 

28 

Figure 12 illustrates a three-dimensional rendering of the regional station and the surrounding 

development using the recommended build-out land uses and densities and includes key considerations, 

such as: 

1. Station is focus of mixed-use activity center 

2. Ability to phase-in mid- to high-density surrounding development 

3. Most parking structured in garages or two level decks, with small short-term surface lot 

4. Regional transit hub 
29 

Figure 10: Regional Station Footprint 

30 

Table 3: Regional Station Characteristics 

Influence Area 

Characteristics 

Area Desired Land Use Mix Typical Land Uses Typical 

Building 

Heights 

Average 

Development 

Density 

Average 

Residential 

Density 

Parking Types 

Transit Core 

 1/4 mile radius 

from station 

 5-minute walk 

125 acres 

 Up to 70% employment  Up to 50% residential  Up to 15% other 

 Mid-high rise office towers  Mid-high rise residential towers  Government/educational/ 

employment/research campuses 

6 stories or more 

1.0 – 3.0 FAR 50 - 100 

DU/acre

 Multi-story 

structure 

Transit Neighborhood 

 1/2 mile radius 

from station 

 10-minute walk 

375 acres 

 Up to 60% employment  50% or more residential  15% or more other 

 Mid-rise residential towers  Lofts/condominiums  Apartments/townhomes  Office/research park  Medical facilities  Lifestyle retail centers  Mixed-use developments 

4 stories or more 

0.5 – 1.0 FAR 25 - 50 

DU/acre

 Multi-story 

structure or parking deck

Transit Supportive Area

 1 mile radius from 

station 

 20-minute walk  5-minute drive 

1,500 acres 

 Up to 40% employment  60% or more residential  15% or more other 

 Apartments/townhomes  Row houses  Office/research park  Garden office buildings  Multi-use developments 

2 stories or more 

0.35 – 0.5 FAR

18 - 25 DU/acre

 Long-term: 

parking deck

 Short-term: 

surface lot 
31 

Figure 11: Prototypical Station Area Plan – Regional Station 

32 

Figure 12: Station Area Perspective – Regional Station 
33 

Chapter 5. Local Station 

A local station would generally be located in a 

suburban town center, the central activity center of 

a master planned community or the historic 

downtown of a rural freestanding community, 

characterized by a mix of residential, civic, 

employment, and retail uses (e.g., “Main Street” 

commercial, garden office buildings), at lower 

intensities than those around regional stations. They 

serve as trip generators for commuters; some may 

serve as attractions as well. Local stations capture 

inbound and outbound commuters via commuter 

rail. 

Intercity passenger rail typically does not stop at 

local stations, but may stop at a local station that is 

strategically located to capture riders from smaller 

communities between larger metropolitan areas 

within the Sun Corridor. These stations may, 

however, be connected to a sub-regional transit 

network, including downtown circulator routes, 

fixed-route bus service, and potentially express bus. 

Local stations are generally supported by park-andride facilities. In a suburban setting, local stations 

typically attract ridership from within a 5- to 20-mile 

radius around the station. In a rural setting, local 

stations often attract ridership from within a 20- to 

40-mile radius.

The general planning considerations for local stations 

and the typical characteristics of the various modes 

of access are discussed below. Local station 

parameters are summarized in Table 4, presented at 

the end of the chapter. 

5.1 Station Type Characteristics 

Mix of Land Uses and Development Densities 

Within the first quarter-mile (Transit Core), typical land uses may include:

Mid-rise residential towers 

Lofts/condominiums 

34 

Apartments/townhouse complexes 

“Main Street” commercial/mixed-use development 

Government service center 

Office/research park 

Within the next quarter-mile (Transit Neighborhood), typical land uses may include: 

Apartments/townhomes 

Row houses 

Garden/office buildings 

Multi-use developments 

In the outer half-mile (Transit Supportive Area), typical land uses may include: 

Apartments/townhomes 

Patio home/zero lot line residential 

Garden/office buildings 

Multi-use developments 

Target FAR/Building Heights 

0.5 – 1.0 FAR 

4 stories or more 

Station Footprint, and Site Acreage 

Station Footprint – 0.8 to 1.0 acres 

Station Site Acreage – 4 to 5 acres 
35 

Parking Requirements 

Surface parking lot, with potential for future structured parking deck, if necessary 

5.2 Modes of Access 

Unlike a system hub or a regional station, a local station will primarily serve “main street” commercial 

and mixed-use developments, government service centers, office/research parks, and residential uses 

such as higher-density apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and row houses. Areas surrounding a 

local station will, therefore, require shorter distances of connectivity, and put more emphasis on 

localized transit. Greatest priority should be given to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and bus transit 

options that include both locally-oriented service to surrounding neighborhoods and commercial 

districts such as circulators, as well as limited stop regional transit service to surrounding municipalities. 

Park-and-ride facilities should be provided to accommodate users who choose to access the passenger 

rail service through personal vehicles. 

The general planning and design considerations for local stations, and the typical characteristics of the 

various modes of access are discussed below. 

General Planning and Design Considerations 

200’ – 400’ with pedestrian penetration every 200’

Maximum block perimeter: 1,200’

Study area reference (existing block sizes): Downtown Casa Grande – 300’ x 300’

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 

Pedestrian-oriented streets with shaded sidewalks, buffered from vehicular traffic by 

landscaping 

Mid-block pedestrian linkage 

Pedestrian access to transit hubs from within a short (0-1 mile) distance 

Bike lanes and/or paths throughout the station area 

Bicycle access to transit hubs from within a moderate (1-5 mile) distance, which may be onstreet, off-street or a combination 

Transit Connections 

BRT/Express Bus 

Fixed route bus service operating along major highways between communities 

Limited stop express service between communities 

Schedule coordination with commuter rail service 

Local Bus 

All-day, fixed-route bus service along main roads with stops averaging every quarter- to halfmile 

36 

May offer higher frequency bus service during peak periods 

Circulator Bus 

Circulates within activity center and adjacent neighborhoods 

Frequent stops averaging every quarter-mile or less (including flag-down service, to allow 

stops at undefined locations) 

Provides feeder or distribution service to and from transit center/rail station

Vehicular Parking Facilities 

Surface parking lot, with potential for future structured parking deck, if necessary

Incorporate car share programs (particularly in communities with significant regional 

attractions)

5.3 Prototypical Station Footprint and Station Area Plan 

A prototypical station area footprint for the local station type is presented in Figure 13. The station 

footprint illustrates the passenger amenities and supporting activity spaces for the local station. 

Table 4 provides a summary of the development characteristics for the areas surrounding a local station, 

including land use and activity types, FAR, building heights, development densities, and parking. It is 

recommended that communities refer to these development characteristics while formulating station 

area plans for their community. A prototypical station area plan for the local station is presented in 

Figure 14, which illustrates such development characteristics. 

Figure 15 illustrates a three-dimensional rendering of the local station and the surrounding development 

using the recommended build-out land uses and densities and includes key considerations, such as: 

1. Station becomes anchor and focal point in mixed-use downtown environment 

2. Ability to phase-in modest density immediately surrounding station, including potential 

structured deck parking 

3. Regional transit hub 

4. Most parking in surface lots with multi-use potential with adjacent commercial services 
37 

Figure 13: Local Station Footprint 

38 

Table 4: Local Station Characteristics 

Influence Area 

Characteristics 

Area Desired Land Use Mix Typical Land Uses Typical 

Building 

Heights 

Average 

Development 

Density 

Average 

Residential 

Density 

Parking Types 

Transit Core 

 1/4 mile radius 

from station 

 5-minute walk 

125 acres 

 Up to 60% employment  Up to 50% residential  15% or more other 

 Lofts/condominiums  Mid-rise residential towers  Apartment/townhouse 

complexes 

 “Main Street” commercial/ 

mixed-use development 

 Government service center  Office/research park 

4 stories or more 

0.5 – 1.0 FAR 25 - 50 

DU/acre

 Surface lot, 

with potential to accommodate future structured parking deck 

Transit Neighborhood 

 1/2 mile radius 

from station 

 10-minute walk 

375 acres 

 Up to 30% employment  50% or more residential  Up to 15% other 

 Apartments/townhomes  Row houses  Garden office buildings  Multi-use developments 

3 stories or more 

0.35 – 0.5 FAR

18 - 25 DU/acre

 Surface lot 

Transit Supportive Area

 1 mile radius from 

station 

 20-minute walk  5-minute drive 

1,500 acres 

 Up to 30% employment  80% or more residential  10% or more other 

 Apartments/townhomes  Patio home/zero lot line 

residential 

 Garden office buildings  Multi-use developments 

2 stories or more 

0.25 – 0.35 FAR

8 - 18 DU/acre

 Surface lot 
39 

Figure 14: Prototypical Station Area Plan – Local Station 

40 

Figure 15: Station Area Perspective – Local Station 
41 

Chapter 6. Transit Emergent Station Location 

A transit emergent station would generally be located in the core of a smaller town outside a major 

metropolitan area, or serve as the mixed-use core activity center of a freestanding master planned 

community, which is part of a larger regional economy and expects considerable growth to occur in the 

next 15- to 20-years. The station area would have a mix of retail and service uses, including such 

residential and civic uses: 

“Main Street” commercial

Garden office buildings 

Apartments/townhomes 

Row houses 

These uses would occur at intensities approaching those around local stations, however, passenger rail 

service would not yet stop at these stations. “Transit emergent” means that there may currently be little 

or no local transit service to the activity center, but such service is expected to emerge (e.g., regional 

transit connections between communities) as local community development activity matures and 

intensifies, justifying the need for a future local station with commuter rail service. 

The general planning considerations for transit emergent station locations and the typical characteristics 

of the various modes of access are discussed below. 

6.1 Station Type Characteristics 

Mix of Land Uses and Development Densities 

Within the first quarter-mile (Transit Core), typical land uses may include:

“Main Street” commercial/mixed-use development 

Apartments/townhomes 

Row houses 

Government service center 

Garden/office buildings 

Within the next quarter-mile (Transit Neighborhood), typical land uses may include: 

Apartments/townhomes 

Row houses 

Garden/office buildings 

Multi-use developments 

In the outer half-mile (Transit Supportive Area), typical land uses may include: 

Patio home/zero lot line residential 

Row houses 

Garden/office buildings 

Multi-use developments 

Single-family neighborhoods of New Urbanist character 

42 

Target FAR/Building Heights 

0.5 – 1.0 FAR 

2 stories or more 

Parking Requirements 

Surface lot, with potential for future structured parking deck, if necessary 

6.2 Modes of Access 

Unlike a system hub or a regional station, a transit emergent station location will primarily serve “Main 

Street” commercial and mixed-use developments, government service centers, office/research parks, 

and residential uses such as condominiums, apartments, townhomes, and row houses. Areas 

surrounding a transit emergent station location will, therefore, require shorter distances of connectivity, 

and should put more emphasis on localized transit. Greatest priority should be given to pedestrian and 

bicycle connectivity and circulator bus transit options. Park-and-ride facilities should be provided to 

accommodate users who choose to access the future passenger rail service through personal vehicles. 

The general planning and design considerations for transit emergent station locations, and the typical 

characteristics of the various modes of access are discussed as follows. 

General Planning and Design Considerations 

200’ – 400’ with pedestrian penetration every 200’

Maximum block perimeter: 1,200’

Study area reference (existing block sizes): Downtown Coolidge – 600’ x 300’
43 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity 

Pedestrian-oriented streets with shaded sidewalks, buffered from vehicular traffic by 

landscaping 

Mid-block pedestrian linkage 

Pedestrian access to transit hubs from within a short (0-1 mile) distance 

Bike lanes and/or paths throughout the station district 

Bicycle access to transit hubs from within a moderate (1-5 mile) distance, which may be onstreet, off-street or a combination 

Transit Connections 

Express Bus 

Fixed route bus service operating along major highways between communities 

Limited stop express service between communities 

Schedule coordination with commuter rail service 

Local Bus 

All-day, fixed-route bus service along main roads with stops averaging every quarter- to halfmile 

May offer higher frequency bus service during peak periods 

Circulator Bus 

Circulates within activity center and adjacent neighborhoods 

Frequent stops averaging every quarter-mile or less (including flag-down service, to allow 

stops at undefined locations) 

Provides feeder or distribution service to and from transit center/rail station

Vehicular Parking Facilities 

Surface parking lot 

44 

Table 5: Supportive Transportation Infrastructure 
45 

Chapter 7. Station Area Planning Principles 

7.1 Land Use 

The surrounding mix of land uses plays an important role in making a rail stop a successful station 

location. Station area plans help communities identify the appropriate scale and type of development 

that can support both local visions and the regional transit network. Standards for new development or 

redevelopment should recognize the travel behavior of residents, employees, and others close to transit 

and appropriately plan for reduced parking demand, local-serving retail/service demand, and the need 

for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. 

The following land use planning principles are presented to serve as a basis for communities to develop 

specific station area plans. 

A. Plan for the highest density development to be clustered around the station location or within the 

immediately adjacent activity center. 

The concentration of medium- to high-density 

developments (ideally within mixed-use 

development projects) around station 

locations fosters transit-oriented 

development (TOD) and promotes transit 

ridership and sustainability of the area. These 

higher density areas should be planned with 

small block sizes and pedestrian amenities to 

foster a highly walkable environment. Ideally, 

uses clustered around the station location 

should contribute to at least a 16-hour a day activity center (mix of business, commercial, and 

retail/services open for at least 16 consecutive hours to allow for street activity) (as further 

elaborated in principle C). 

B. Buildings in mixed-use development projects or within a 

quarter-mile radius of the station location should typically 

be 6 stories or higher (1.0 to 3.0 FAR; 50-100 DU/acre) for 

the system hub and regional station type, and 4 stories or 

higher (0.5 to 1.0 FAR; 25-50 DU/acre) for the local station 

type. 

While land use plans, redevelopment strategies, and zoning 

codes often specify a range of densities or a maximum 

density for development, setting minimum densities can 

help define the character of TOD and help provide flexibility 

to accommodate changing market demands. 

Highest Density Development in Downtown 

Phoenix 

High-Rise Development 

Adjacent to Passenger Rail 

46 

C. The activity center where the rail station is located should offer a variety of land uses that create 

16-hour/day activity (e.g., offices, lofts/condominiums, apartments/townhomes, medical 

facilities, retail/service centers, etc.). 

Incorporating a variety of uses in an activity center/core 

ensures that it remains active for a majority of the 24-

hour day and attracts people with diverse interests to 

conduct business in proximity to transit infrastructure. 

In addition to creating an active business and social 

environment, all-day activity increases safety with more 

“eyes on the street” and enhances the character of the 

activity center. 

Key social services like childcare centers, health clinics 

and other important destinations should be located 

close to heavily-used transit stations and hubs to 

accommodate transit-dependent populations. 

D. Employment uses should constitute a 

descending proportion of the land use within 

a quarter-mile radius of a rail station as we 

transition from a hub to a regional to a local 

station type. 

Setting maximum prescribed percentages for 

land use compositions ensures a balanced 

activity center with the correct mix of land 

uses. 

E. Residential uses should constitute an 

ascending proportion of the land use within 

a quarter-mile radius of a rail station as we 

transition from a hub to a regional to a local 

station type. 

Setting maximum prescribed percentages for 

land use compositions ensures a balanced 

activity center with the correct mix of land 

uses. 

 

Retail Below, Residential Above 

Residential Emphasis at Local at San Antonio 

CALTRAIN Station 

Employment Emphasis at Sunnyvale 

Regional CALTRAIN Station 
47 

F. Local municipalities should consider implementing a performance-based tool (e.g., form based 

development code, regulatory Specific Area Plan, other) to direct and regulate medium- and highdensity mixed-use development within the 

station vicinity. 

A regulatory framework that allows for and 

encourages medium- and high-density mixeduse development is essential for promoting the 

types of quality development that support a 

passenger rail station and foster a safe and 

healthy urban environment. 

7.2 Mobility and Connectivity 

Successful station areas require access to multiple modes of travel, including walking, biking, transit, and 

vehicular travel. Streets within the station areas should plan for safe mobility for all users, and provide a 

walkable environment that encourages rail and transit patrons to use pedestrian facilities. This approach 

to mobility and connectivity may result in trade-offs due to space constraints in close proximity to 

transit; priority should be given to non-automobile modes whenever possible. 

A. The station location for the system hub and regional station types should be served by highcapacity transit (LRT/modern streetcar, express bus/BRT) and higher-frequency local bus, 

circulator bus systems, and/or a combination thereof. Local station types should be served by 

local bus and circulator bus systems. 

A passenger rail station should be 

accessible through a range of transit 

options to make it attractive and 

convenient for the largest number of 

potential riders. Availability of convenient 

intersecting transit connections expands 

the overall population served by rail, and 

attracts more rail riders due to the 

convenience of accessing activity center 

destinations beyond a reasonable walking 

distance from the rail station. 

 

Feeder Buses Connect Employment Centers 

with Commuter Rail Stations in San Francisco 

Performance-Based Tools can help in 

Directing and Regulating Development 

48 

B. Streets, within the station vicinity should provide access for transit vehicles and their operational 

needs, if applicable (e.g., bus pull-outs, adequate turning radii, pedestrian crosswalks with 

warning signals). 

Streets within station areas should be 

planned with the ultimate aim of providing 

easy access to transit services. Narrow 

travel lanes and slow design speeds, 

combined with bus pull outs and geometric 

considerations for easy movement of large 

transit vehicles such as buses, are desired. 

Street design should be considered early in 

the planning process and the advantages 

weighed against potential impacts such as 

lower bus operating speeds and higher 

operating expenses. 

C. Block sizes within the station vicinity should facilitate a dense street grid pattern such that they 

support walkability and street side retail/service and business activities (200'- 400' with 

pedestrian penetration every 200'; maximum block perimeter – 1,200'). 

Smaller block sizes are often perceived as 

more easily walkable and accessible to 

pedestrians. Station areas should be 

planned with a denser grid street pattern 

that reduces walking distances and 

provides easy access to sidewalk 

retail/services, where applicable. 

To be walkable, neighborhoods need 

destinations (schools, grocery stores, jobs) 

within walking distance. They need a 

certain density of activity to be functional 

and active throughout a good portion of the day. They also need to be safe, with good sidewalks, 

lighting, and buffers for protection from traffic. 

 

Transit Center near Denver Union Station 

Smaller Block Sizes Support Walkability and 

Street-side Business Activities 
49 

D. The inclusion of public spaces is essential to vibrant station activity and should be located 

appropriate to adjacent uses (e.g., parks and playgrounds in residential areas, public plazas in 

employment, commercial and campus areas). 

The provision of open space such as 

plazas or parks should be an integral 

consideration in land use planning 

and urban design scenarios for the 

station districts. Four key factors for 

successful public spaces include: they 

are accessible; people are engaged in 

activities there; the space is 

comfortable and has a good image; 

and it is a sociable place: one where 

people meet each other and take 

people when they come to visit. 

Public art that involves local artists and 

reflects local history, culture, and aesthetics should be incorporated in public spaces. Open spaces 

offer the flexibility for accommodating special community events, such as a farmer’s market.

E. The station district should 

incorporate pedestrian-oriented 

streets with shaded sidewalks and 

other amenities (e.g., street 

furniture, pedestrian scale lighting), 

and should be buffered from 

vehicular traffic by landscaping. 

The sidewalk network within the 

station area should be buffered from 

street traffic by landscaping or onstreet parking, and should provide 

pedestrian amenities that are integral 

to a quality walkable environment, such as shade, lighting, landscaping, benches, etc. Sidewalks 

should not be placed next to empty building faces. Doors and windows should open onto sidewalks. 

Public Plaza in Downtown Phoenix 

Shaded Sidewalks and Street Furniture 

50 

7.3 Building Design 

Building design (or overall mixed-use project character development) plays an important role in defining 

the quality and attractiveness of an area and in making it desirable to businesses that depend on 

pedestrian traffic. Several building design principles can be used for this purpose, with minimal cost 

implications for property owners or developers. The following key principles have been identified to 

guide the design of buildings or mixed-use development projects within station areas. 

A. Buildings or mixed-use development projects within the station district should be designed to 

avoid placing blank walls along pedestrian walkways. 

Long stretches of blank walls along 

sidewalks and pedestrian walkways are 

known to discourage pedestrian activity. 

Blank walls provide no destinations of 

activity and minimal lighting. Therefore, 

they can often be perceived by 

pedestrians to be unsafe corridors. 

Buildings within the station district should 

be designed to avoid placing blank walls 

along pedestrian facilities and incorporate 

spaces such as retail and service uses for 

pedestrians and utilize engaging facades. 

B. Off-street parking should be provided behind or adjacent to buildings with well-marked access, or 

in parking structures lined with other pedestrian-oriented uses, such as retail, services, or 

residential. 

Large surface parking lots in front of 

buildings (between the building and the 

street) act as barriers for pedestrian 

activity. Parking, if required, should be 

provided behind buildings (with doors and 

windows opening to the sidewalk, not the 

parking facility) to make it more attractive 

for pedestrian access, as well as to create a 

more engaging sidewalk environment. 

Parking does not always need to be directly 

adjacent to the station. Often, local retail 

can be strengthened if transit riders have to 

walk along a shopping street to get to and from the station. 

 

Avoid Blank Walls along Sidewalks 

Parking Behind or Adjacent to Buildings 
51 

C. Local municipalities should require new and rehabilitated buildings to have pedestrian-friendly 

uses located along pedestrian pathways. 

Retail and other pedestrian-friendly uses located along pedestrian pathways contribute to a highquality walking environment and are generally attractive to transit users. Such pedestrian-oriented 

uses allow for more “eyes on the street”, increasing safety, community awareness, and community 

cohesion. In addition, key social services such as childcare centers, health clinics, and service 

agencies generally provide an economic benefit when located close to heavily-used transit stations 

and hubs to accommodate transit-dependent populations.

D. Local municipalities should encourage the use of environmentally-sustainable design, creation of 

public green spaces, and the accommodation of multiple modes of travel within building or 

mixed-use project developments. 

Local municipalities can put into place 

incentives that encourage the use 

sustainable design and construction 

materials, creation of functional public 

spaces, incorporation of green 

technologies, and the accommodation of 

multiple modes of travel through density 

bonuses, expedited building reviews, and 

financial assistance. These characteristics 

generally improve the character of the 

area. 

Locate Pedestrian Friendly Uses along Sidewalks 

Encourage Environmentally Sustainable Design 

52 

7.4 Housing Affordability 

A transit system can only be successful if it is accessible to people from all social and economic 

backgrounds. The success of a transit-oriented development is, in part, dependant on the availability of 

housing that is affordable within walking distance of the transit station. The following principles have 

been identified to incorporate affordable housing in a station area plan. 

A. Local municipalities, in partnership with for- and non-profit developers, should ensure that 

affordable housing is available within walking distance (10-minute walk) from the transit station. 

Local municipalities should have policies 

to encourage affordable housing within 

the station district. More affordable 

housing will promote both transit 

ridership and social equity by lowering 

the combined cost of housing and 

transportation is to expand housing 

opportunities adjacent to transit. 

B. It is important to preserve, rehabilitate or replace existing affordable housing over time as new 

development or redevelopment occurs within station areas.

As station area development or 

redevelopment occurs, local 

municipalities should put in place 

policies for preserving existing 

affordable housing in the station 

district, as well as proactively 

implement policies to encourage 

development of additional affordable 

housing opportunities, often as part of 

other development projects. 

Maintaining a healthy mix of housing 

options near transit stations allows 

communities to produce better economic, social and environmental outcomes for all residents. 

Mixed-income housing – whether provided within a single project or a neighborhood – enhances 

community stability and sustainability, and ensures that low-income households are not isolated in 

concentrations of poverty. Just as important, mixing and mingling of people from diverse 

backgrounds and experiences promotes innovation by increasing the opportunities for people to 

share and combine ideas from different perspectives and traditions.

Affordable Housing within Walking Distance 

Rehabilitate Existing/Develop New Affordable 

Housing 
53 

C. Local municipalities should provide incentives to encourage the developers of market-rate 

residential projects to incorporate a proportion of affordable housing within their projects. 

Station area plans should set goals for 

encouraging attainable housing as part 

of market-rate housing development 

projects, and proactively implement 

policies such as inclusionary zoning, 

density bonuses, expedited review 

processes, etc. to achieve them. 

Providing a mix of market-rate and 

affordable housing units broadens the 

transit ridership base. 

D. Local municipalities should offer incentives to provide affordable housing as a part of mixed- or 

multi-use developments. 

Local municipalities can use similar incentives to those identified above to encourage the 

development of affordable housing within mixed- or multi-use developments. 

7.5 Parking 

Parking facilities within the station area should be planned to complement development projects and 

support use of rail transit without compromising walkability. 

A. On-street parking can serve as a buffer between pedestrians and street traffic and creates a 

reserve of short-term parking. 

Local municipalities should formulate 

parking policies for the station district 

that promote short-term on-street 

parking. On-street parking serves as a 

buffer between street traffic and 

pedestrians, and provides easy shortterm access to retail/service uses and 

restaurants. 

On-street Parking provides Buffer Between Traffic 

and Pedestrians 

Local Incentives help in Encouraging Affordable 

Housing as a part of Market-Rate Housing 

54 

B. Station locations for the system hub and regional station types should incorporate multi-story 

parking structure(s) with retail/service uses on the ground floor along pedestrian corridors. 

The station district should offer 

structured parking that is easily 

accessible, but does not always need 

to be adjacent to the station. Often, 

local retail and services can be 

strengthened if transit riders have to 

walk a short distance along a shopping 

street to get to and from the station. 

C. Parking should be priced to encourage transit use over driving. 

Parking within the station district should 

be provided only as supporting 

infrastructure, and should be priced to 

encourage transit use over driving. 

Innovative parking management 

strategies such as reduced parking or 

maximum parking requirements, shared 

parking, car-sharing, parking assessment 

and revenue districts should also be 

considered in station area planning. 

D. Priority parking spaces should be made available within station districts for multiple occupant and 

alternative fuel vehicles. 

Municipal parking policies should 

incentivize carpooling and use of 

alternative fuel vehicles by providing 

priority parking spaces for residents, 

employees, and guests within station 

districts. Such parking spaces could 

include plug-ins for electric vehicles. 

Boulder Downtown Parking Structure Wrapped 

with Retail 

Provide Priority Parking Spaces for 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Car-Share Programs Help in Encouraging Transit Use
55 

E. Municipalities should encourage adjacent uses with different peak hours of parking demand to 

share parking or provide reduced parking to encourage transit use. 

Municipal parking policies should 

incorporate provisions that 

enable the sharing of parking 

spaces by adjacent business to 

maximize the utility of available 

parking spaces and not to develop 

unused parking for large portions 

of the day. An example might be 

the sharing of parking between 

an office building (generally 

occupied most during working hours) and a movie theater complex (generally most occupied during 

evening hours and on weekends). Additionally, park-and-ride facilities in suburban or rural locations 

could share parking with nearby commercial properties or public facilities such as libraries or post 

offices. 

56 

Chapter 8. Implementation Program Requirements 

8.1 Planning Process for Communities 

Planning for intercity and commuter rail stations is new to Arizona communities, with most of the 

communities having little or no rail transit station planning experience. The planning process must 

comply with Arizona state statutes and satisfy the requirements of the Growing Smarter framework 

(created by the Growing smarter Act of 1998) for increased level of public participation, incorporation of 

new growth-related plan elements, and provision of public hearings for future rezoning actions. 

As a guidance tool, a recommended planning process has been outlined that can be used for developing 

individual station area plans. 

Planning Process for Communities 

Step 1 – Project Definition 

The first step in the station area planning process involves defining the project goals, objectives, and 

location-specific characteristics. At the beginning of the Tier II analysis of alternatives for the APRCS 

study, four station types were defined to address the local needs and future vision for the Sun Corridor. 

A universe of alternative station locations were identified through discussions with partner agencies, 

stakeholders, counties, and cities/towns. Identified station locations were analyzed for proximity to 

existing activity centers, surrounding land uses and densities, access to existing or programmed transit 

services, and ridership potential for commuter and intercity rail services, among other measures. In 

addition, a “Community Readiness Assessment” was conducted, which served to review each 

community’s plans and policies for transit supportive land uses, mobility, connectivity, building design, 

housing affordability and parking that are required to support and enable successful station area 

development. A final set of individual meetings with communities, combined with the other tools 

mentioned above, helped determine a potential list of station locations. Stakeholder outreach and 

community involvement should be ongoing, incorporated into each step of the planning process. 

With defined station location sites, the project definition stage for cities and towns begins here. This 

step should have strong emphasis on community and stakeholder involvement. As the ultimate users of 

the station area, the city/town should lead the planning process for the station area and all key 

stakeholders should be engaged early on in defining the needs and aspirations of the community as a 

whole. Additionally, it is important for the municipal government and planning departments to be 

involved from the beginning since they provide the regulatory background necessary for the success of a 

station area planning process. 
57 

Step 2 – Inventory of Existing Conditions 

Step 2 of the planning process involves creating a complete inventory of existing conditions around an 

identified station location. Mapping of adjacent elements ensures that station designs integrate within 

the local context and provide continuity in transportation connections. 

Elements that should be inventoried as part of this step include: 

Adjacent land uses, zoning, and development densities 

Land use and zoning policies 

Availability of vacant/developable land parcels 

Proximity to community facilities 

Existing roadways (size, elements within the right-of-way) and traffic control devices 

Streetscape policies and aesthetic elements 

Location of parallel and intersecting transit routes (including stops, schedules, and 

accommodations within street right-of-way) 

Pedestrian and bicycle connections, sidewalks and trails 

Existing bike facilities such as bike lanes, bike racks, etc. 

Existing parking types (e.g., off-street lots, on-street parking stalls, structured parking) and 

parking capacity 

Step 3 –Identification of Opportunities and Constraints and Analysis of Development Potential 

Step 3 of the planning process involves investigation and identification of potential opportunities and 

constraints specific to the station site and vicinity. Analysis of opportunities establishes future 

development potential for the area, while the constraints help in addressing potential challenges during 

the station development process. 

In addition to ascertaining the future development potential, this stage involves the assessment of 

future development and capacity needs, such as required parking spaces, public open spaces, etc. An 

assessment of market and economic conditions is also critical to establish target markets for new and 

revitalized development activity, and to understand station area elements necessary to attract those 

markets. Additionally, a market analysis can provide an understanding of reasonable amounts of 

different land uses to plan for (e.g., what is the saturation of retail uses the station area can withstand?). 

A study of similar comparable projects or “best practices” in other parts of the country could provide 

insight into sizing needs, mix of land uses, costs, and other innovative design and implementation 

techniques used. 

Step 4 – Conceptual Station Area Planning 

Step 4 of the planning process involves the use of the previous assessment of existing conditions, issues 

and opportunities, development potential, and market studies to begin defining potential development 

and revitalization alternatives. This includes concepts for the use of vacant/developable land parcels, 

ideas for redevelopment of properties, or reuse of underutilized parcels with the ultimate objective of 

maximizing the utility of the spaces around the station site. This is the stage where agencies and 

stakeholders should review conceptual designs and provide input regarding consistency with local 

58 

planning legislation and guidelines. 

Preliminary phasing and conceptual cost estimates are also part of this stage. Since all development 

around a station site is not expected to occur at the same time, it is important to incorporate the idea of 

phased development from the conceptual planning stage. Public capital investments may be needed in 

the initial phases to develop basic infrastructure (e.g., transportation, potable water, sanitary sewer, 

storm drainage, etc.) and amenities that will in turn attract new development to the area. 

Step 5 – Final Station Area Plan 

This stage involves refinements to the station area plan concepts leading to the formulation of 

development alternatives and ultimately the selection and refinement of a final station area plan. The 

ongoing refinements to conceptual plans typically include identification of site specific program 

elements, defined spaces, mix of uses, mobility elements, building footprints, etc. The final station area 

plan includes policies and strategies to encourage identified development types and styles, attract 

target businesses, and create spaces that encourage transit ridership. The plan also outlines detailed 

project costs, identifies the funding sources, and lays out development phasing for final implementation. 

Step 6 – Community Acceptance and Agency Approvals 

Upon completion of a final draft of the station area plan, the station area plan should go through a final 

vetting and review process prescribed by the city/town, and involve the community, partnering 

agencies, and all key stakeholders. Any final adjustments to plan details may be made at this stage to 

ensure that the plan complies with local regulations and meets the desires and needs of the community 

and stakeholders. 

8.2 Public Policy Actions 

The following identifies a menu of public policy actions that could be pursued by a city/town to prepare 

and implement station area plans to guide urban development or redevelopment within station districts 

around intercity or commuter rail stations. This list is representative and is not meant to be prescriptive, 

but is intended to provide a “checklist” as to the actions a municipality may want to consider. 

1. Development Policy Considerations 

A. General Plan Amendment – An amendment to the General Plan may be required to: 

Establish a station district 

Provide property tax incentives to develop mixed uses 

Broaden uses permitted under the mixed-use zoning category 

Facilitate regional revenue sharing to fund pre-development and infrastructure 

incentives 

Include an open space strategy for the station area/activity center 

Promote smaller block sizes; prevent large blocks with similar uses 

Ensure historic preservation 

Establish a redevelopment district 

Encourage more vertical development 
59 

Revise parking standards within station district 

B. Changes to the zoning code – Communities may require changes to their zoning code to 

allow mixed-uses; consider Form Based Code (flexible zoning, zero lot lines) within the 

station district. 

C. TOD Overlay District – Designation of a TOD overlay district for station area; develop a TOD 

plan for the station area 

D. Design/Development Guidelines – Establish design guidelines that encourage mixed uses, 

include integrated energy practices, promote more vertical development by increasing 

building heights and allowable densities, and provide development incentives. 

E. Station Area Plan – Develop a station area plan that locates key public uses in the activity 

center core, accommodates highest density development in station area core with stepdown density moving away from the center, incorporates open space as a key component, 

and interfaces all modes of transportation with the rail station in a functional and efficient 

manner. The station area plan will treat the station area and activity center core as one 

integrated planning area. The plan will also provide appropriate transition between 

employment and residential uses. 

F. Joint Public Facility Plan – The community may develop a joint public facility plan in 

association with the transit authority/agency to guide long-term public investment in the 

station district. 

2. Transportation Policy Considerations 

A. Multimodal Transportation Plan – A transport agency may be established to facilitate 

coordinated development of an integrated transportation system. The community will need 

to develop an integrated multimodal transportation master plan that address pedestrian 

and bike facilities, rail, public transit, and vehicular traffic needs. The plan may include: 

Multi-use paths 

Open space/trails plan 

Well-designed bike connectivity 

Car share and bike share facilities 

Bike lockers/showers at stations 

B. Transit Connectivity – The station district should feature an expanded transit system with a 

variety of public transit options, including high-capacity transit (LRT/modern streetcar) in 

large communities, and express and local bus systems. Connections between the activity 

center core, rail station, and adjoining mixed-use, employment and residential uses should 

be provided through a circulator bus system. A rail station with an integrated transit station 

is preferred. Bus pull-outs and shelters should be provided. Minimize transit transfers as 

much as possible; transit connections should go directly to rail station. 

C. Parking Facilities – Parking facilities should be strategically located and distributed, to avoid 

under-utilized asphalt islands. Within the station district, parking standards will need to be 

revised to promote joint/shared parking facilities, reduced parking minimums, promote 

60 

vertical parking facilities (multi-story parking decks and garages), and provide on-street 

parking. Park-and ride facilities may be required. A parking policy may be essential to 

establish varying rates for short-term and long-term parking. Parking garages could be 

provided on the edge of mixed-use areas or integrated into those areas to serve multiple 

purposes. 

D. Rental Cars/Car Sharing Programs – Rental car agencies and carshare programs should be 

incorporated into the design of station areas. Explore the feasibility of starting a carshare 

program, and identify the most desirable location for locating such a service in relationship 

to the station. Car rental agencies should be located to provide easy access for passengers 

arriving/departing by rail, while ensuring that the most attractive land around the station is 

available for active-use developments. 

E. Pedestrian/Street Network – Revise street standards to provide complete streets (include 

pedestrian infrastructure, traffic calming measures, bicycle lanes, and bus lanes/pull-outs) 

throughout the station area, and along major arterial streets. Road diets (lane reduction or 

road re-channelization to achieve systemic improvements) could be used to accommodate a 

finer grid pattern (smaller block sizes) and to preserve right-of-way for future development. 

The station area should feature walkable streets with wider sidewalks, shade and lighting 

along sidewalks, pedestrian-scale development, and pedestrian connectivity between the 

station and the activity center core. In addition, the “main street” area should feature 

enhanced pedestrian streetscape with limited access to vehicular traffic. 

F. Grade Crossings – Ideally, the local street pattern is aligned parallel to rail corridors to 

minimize at-grade crossings, however different historical development patterns may exist. 

Grade separated crossings should be provided to minimize rail/vehicular traffic conflicts, as 

necessary. 

G. Other Transportation Considerations – may include: 

Employee or other special group subsidies for public transportation 

Establish no whistle zones for trains in the community in coordination with other 

safety measures 

3. Other Considerations 

Other considerations for station area development include: 

Promote sustainable practices in all new and rehabilitated construction – solar energy, 

gray water, green roofs 

Plan for flexibility 

Provide easy connectivity through layering of transportation linkages 

Provide direct highway linkage to station 

Provide affordable housing nearby or integrated into mixed-use developments 

Provide multi-use/greenway trails near major employment areas, and parks near 

residential areas 

Advance right-of-way preservation to minimize costs and provide development surety 

Implement measures to allow new and rehabilitated development to pay for amenities 
61 

in the station area 

Gather political support, and develop “local champions” to provide community 

leadership in station area planning and development 

8.3 Phasing of Public and Private Actions 

Formulation of a Station Area Plan is the first of many coordinated steps, both public and private, 

towards development of a vibrant and attractive transportation node around a passenger rail station. 

Successful implementation of the plan will require a strong partnership between ADOT, the City, other 

affected government agencies, property owners, developers, private agencies, community groups, and 

private citizens. These coordinated efforts will need to be made over several years. 

Various public and private actions have been identified, which may be part of an overall development 

project. However, it should be noted that every development project is different and rarely follows a 

strictly linear process. The graphic presented with this discussion serves only as a point of reference. 

Public Actions 

In order to begin the process of implementation of the Station Area Plan, the public agencies will need 

to work together to develop a regulatory environment suitable for new higher intensity development to 

occur. This will require working with private property owners and developers to gauge the market 

demand for various types of development potential within the station area both now and in the future, 

but will primarily involve decisions and steps to be taken by the public agencies, as illustrated in Figure 

16 on Page 67. 

1. Prepare a Station Area Plan 

The City will, in coordination with ADOT, other stakeholder agencies, and community groups, 

formulate a Station Area Plan that is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the 

passenger rail system. 

2. Incorporate Station Area Plan and Policies into General Plan document 

The City would need to initiate an update to the existing General Plan to include policies and 

elements that are fundamental to the implementation of the station area plan. A General Plan 

update is typically a lengthy process, and hence the City should initiate this effort early on. 

3. Potentially Designate a Redevelopment District around station 

The City could identify and designate a redevelopment district around the passenger rail station 

where it intends to encourage new higher density mixed-use development in the future. In 

order to designate a redevelopment area, the City must satisfy the following Arizona statutes 

requirements: 

One or more slum or blighted areas exist in the station area vicinity 

The redevelopment of that area or areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, 

safety, morals or welfare of the residents of the municipality 

The City must ensure that property owners and developers refrain from speculation by delaying 

redevelopment of their properties. 

62 

4. Acquire Land for Redevelopment 

The City could work with property owners to acquire properties within the station district which 

are candidates for redevelopment and are critical for development of higher intensity uses. 

ADOT could also potentially acquire land for the rail corridor. The City could work with ADOT to 

use the remnant parcels from ADOT for future development. 

5. Incentivize Redevelopment Projects 

The City could identify policies and incentives to attract developers, encourage property owners 

to redevelop their properties, and major employers to the area. 

6. Engage Corporate Attention 

Corporations can play an influential role in stimulating development around transit. 

Corporations are increasingly viewing good transit access as a valuable tool for recruiting scarce 

talent. Engaging corporations in the implementation process can encourage them to locate 

their offices within the station district, stimulating development of complementary uses around 

them. An example of corporate engagement is the Transit-Oriented Development associated 

with Bell South in Downtown Atlanta, where Bell South decided to consolidate 10,500 

employees in three centers adjacent or very near to MARTA rapid rail stations, within the City of 

Atlanta. By design Bell South provided parking only for about half the workforce, with the 

remaining half expected to use MARTA other transit options. This led to a string of positive spinoff effects with a number of other employers renewing or expanding their commitment to 

locating jobs at transit-accessible locations. 

Private Actions 

Private property owners, developers, and organizations have a substantial interest at stake in the overall 

development of a station area. Such stakeholders would typically want to get involved in the planning 

process from the very beginning to ensure that their interests and concerns are addressed in the plan. 

During the implementation process, private entities can play an important role in actually bringing new 

development to the area. In most instances, public efforts for the implementation of the station area 

plan would be unsuccessful in the absence of interest from private entities. 

1. Private institutions could promote station area development 

Private entities, such as the Urban Land Institute, Valley Forward, or Imagine Greater Tucson, 

may promote station area development through their planning efforts. Such entities may utilize 

national level resources from organizations, such as the Center for Transit Oriented 

Development, and Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. 

2. Property owners seek redevelopment of their property 

In anticipation of increased activity surrounding the passenger rail station, private property 

owners may plan development in coordination with the City consistent with the station area 

plan. This may include market studies, and conceptual site planning for their properties. 

3. Developers draw plans for new development projects 

Developers may plan development in coordination with the City consistent with the station area 

plan. This may include market studies, and conceptual site planning for their properties. The City 
63 

may offer incentives to developers for such projects. Municipal incentives for new 

developments can help in offsetting costs that act as deterrents for developers. 

4. Approach the City with proposals for Joint Development 

Joint development is the primary value capture mechanism transit agencies/rail authorities 

commonly use. It is generally a real estate development project that involves coordination 

among multiple public and private parties to develop sites near rail transit, usually on publiclyowned land. Typically the transit agency/rail authority and the private developer will agree to 

share costs of and revenue from the project.

5. Use Public-Private Partnerships to plan and construct major development projects and 

associated key public infrastructure 

Developers or investors may approach the City with proposals for developing large mixed-use, 

residential or employment projects through a public-private partnership arrangement. In such 

situations, the private entity often provides a portion of the capital to finance the project and 

collects an agreed upon portion of the revenue generated by the project, and the public agency 

may provide free or low-cost land, access to infrastructure or other incentives for project 

development. The public sector may also share in the revenue generated by the project. 

64 

Figure 16: Public and Private Actions for Station Area Development

Primarily Public Actions Phase Primarily Private Actions Phase 

Public Entities Arizona Department of Transportation Participate in Planning Supportive Role Supportive Role Lead land acquisition for 

Rail Transit ROW 

Supportive/Advisory Role Supportive/Advisory Role 

(Potential Participation) 

Supportive/Advisory Role 

Host Municipalities Lead preparation of 

Station Area Plan

Lead General Plan amendment process

Lead designation of Redevelopment Area or other funding districts 

Lead land acquisition for TOD

Supportive/Advisory Role Sponsoring/Permitting 

Agency

Sponsoring Agency/ Permitting Agency

Other Affected Agencies1 Participate in Planning Technical Support Technical Support Advisory role Supportive/Advisory Role Supportive/Advisory Role 

(Potential Participation) 

Supportive/Advisory Role 

Private Entities Property Owners Participate in Planning Stakeholder Provide feedback, 

issues/priorities concerning property 

Stakeholder Lead Evaluation of Land 

Development Potential

Lead preparation of Land Development Proposals 

Land Development, Partner with others (as appropriate) 

Developers Participate in Planning Stakeholder Provide feedback, 

issues/priorities concerning property 

Stakeholder Lead Evaluation of Land 

Development Potential

Lead preparation of Land Development Proposals 

Land Development, Partner with others (as appropriate) 

Community Betterment Organizations2 Participate in Planning Stakeholder Provide feedback, 

issues/priorities concerning property 

Stakeholder Marketing/Promotion, 

Economic Development 

Supportive/Advisory Role Marketing/Promotion, 

Economic Development 

Community Groups3 Participate in Planning Stakeholder Provide feedback, 

issues/priorities concerning property 

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder 

Public-at-Large Participate in Planning Stakeholder Provide feedback, 

issues/priorities concerning property 

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder 

1 Includes state and local agencies, such as the Department of Housing, Commerce Authority, MAG, PAG, CAG, Counties, etc. 2 Includes Urban Land Institute, Valley Forward, Imagine Greater Tucson, etc. 3 Includes Neighborhood Organizations, RWAs, etc. 

Station Area Plan (SAP)

Incorporate SAP and Policies into General Plan 

Designate a Redevelopment Area 

Community Facilities District Community Assessment District

Land Acquisition Development Incentives Promote Station Area Development to Property Owners and Corporations 

Property Owners Evaluate Potential for Station Area Land Development Developers Evaluate Potential for Station Area Land Development 

Conventional Land Development Proposals Joint Development Proposals Public-Private Partnership Proposals 

Station Area Development

Zoning Code Implementation Plans 
65 

8.4 Roles and Responsibilities 

A collaborative approach should be adopted throughout the station area planning and development 

process, involving the key agencies and stakeholders, to ensure that the development around the 

station area meets the community’s vision and aspirations for the future. At a minimum, the planning 

process should involve the following key partner agencies: 

Table 6: Partnering Agencies and Their Roles 

Partnering Agency/Stakeholder Role 

Federal Agencies 

1. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Oversight and Funding/Advisory 

2. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Oversight and Funding/Advisory 

3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Advisory/Right-of-Way 

State, Regional and Private Entities 

1. Arizona Department of Transportation (1) State Transportation Regulatory Authority 

2. Arizona Department of Housing Advisory/Affordable Housing Incentives 

3. Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality

Advisory/Regulatory Authority 

4. Arizona Game and Fish Department Advisory 

5. Arizona State Land Department Advisory/Land Resource Incentives 

6. Arizona Commerce Authority Advisory/ Economic Incentives 

7. Maricopa Association of Governments (1) Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

8. Pima Association of Governments (1) Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

9. Central Arizona Governments Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

10. Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning Org. (1) Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

11. Maricopa County Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

12. Pinal County Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

13. Pima County Planning/Jurisdictional Support 

14. Union Pacific Railroad (1) Private Entity/Transportation Stakeholder 

15. BNSF Railway (1) Private Entity/ Transportation Stakeholder 

Municipal Departments 

1. Planning and Community Development Planning, Permitting and Implementation 

2. Transportation/Transit Planning Roadway and Transit Facilities Planning and 

Implementation

3. Economic Development Economic Incentives 

4. Public Works Department Public Facilities Construction Programming and 

Implementation

66 

(1) At this time, no particular entity has been identified to prepare final design, construct and implement 

commuter or intercity rail within the Sun Corridor. Such activities could be undertaken in the future by 

some combination of state and regional agencies, potentially in partnership with the private sector. 

8.5 Potential Incentives for Infill, Revitalization, and Redevelopment 

Through the “Community Readiness Assessments”, communities throughout the Tucson to Phoenix 

corridor have demonstrated that there are opportunities for infill development; revitalization of activity 

centers, historic downtowns and town centers; and redevelopment of properties within otherwise 

vibrant activity nodes. Various incentives are available which can be used to incentivize the location of 

new development or redevelopment in these areas. A few such potential incentives have been discussed 

in this chapter. 

8.5.1 Public Financing for Site Acquisition and Consolidation, Infrastructure, Parking and 

Pedestrian/Streetscape Amenities 

Most public agencies are experiencing severe fiscal constraints at this time. In a time like this, 

communities are looking for ways to make the best use of local government revenue, such a property 

and sales taxes, and generate new revenue to fund TOD infrastructure. A key step in creating a TOD 

infrastructure financing strategy is to evaluate which tool will work best for a particular project or in a 

particular development context. 

8.5.2 Historically-Used Funding Tools 

Density Bonus 

A density bonus is an incentive-based tool that permits developers to increase the maximum allowable 

development on a property in exchange for helping the community achieve public policy goals. 

Increasing development density may allow for increases in developed square footage or increases in the 

number of developed residential units. This tool works best in areas where growth pressures are strong 

and land availability limited or when incentives for attaining the goals outweigh alternative 

development options. 

Density bonuses can help encourage lower cost market-rate housing in areas with high land costs. 

Density bonus programs encourage developers to create affordable dwelling units in areas where the 

local government has identified a shortage of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income 

households. Density bonuses can also be used to entice development to specific neighborhoods or 

zones, such as transit-oriented development in station areas or housing in urban centers, or provide 

amenities, including open space or transit and non motorized transportation features. 

Applicability: Affordable housing, housing for people with special needs, childcare facilities, 

structured/underground parking, open spaces and public plazas, landscaping, preservation of historic 
67 

structures, guide development to preferred location 

Streamlined Development Process and Permitting 

Delays during any stage in the development process add to the final costs of new development. 

Reducing the costs incurred by developers during the development review process makes locating in a 

community more attractive to developers. Expedited permitting is a cost-efficient and very effective way 

of reducing developer costs. Fast-tracking review and permitting of development projects reduces 

developer costs at no-cost to local jurisdictions. 

Applicability: Affordable housing development, preservation of historic structures, guide development 

to preferred location

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 

The CDBG Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is 

intended to ensure decent affordable housing, community services to vulnerable neighborhoods, and 

job creation and retention of businesses. CDBG provides annual formula grants to local government 

agencies and states in several program areas. This tool is not focused on TOD infrastructure but could be 

used in combination with other funding and financing tools for a larger TOD project that meets CDBG 

criteria. 

Applicability: Affordable housing development, neighborhood revitalization and housing rehabilitation 

and infrastructure development, streetscape projects

Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grants 

The EDA, an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce, provides grants to economically distressed 

communities to generate new employment, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and 

commercial growth. Some EDA funding is reserved for public works projects, which can include a wide 

range of infrastructure types provided the project has an economic development purpose. Local 

governments apply directly to the EDA when grants are available. 

Applicability: Small business loans and grants, site acquisition and preparation for economic 

development, infrastructure to support economic development

Assessment District/Business Improvement District 

An Assessment District (sometimes known as a Business Improvement District) is a tool through which 

municipal governments exact revenues from property owners based on the market value of the 

properties within an established district. The assessment is made up of two components – the 

improvement or building value, and the land or site value. Assessment districts can be formed in 

undeveloped areas to build roads and install water and sewer infrastructure, or they might be formed in 

68 

established commercial districts (Business Improvement District) to finance new public improvements. 

Applicability: Special district infrastructure, streetscape or joint use parking projects, district 

maintenance, marketing/promotions, security, site acquisition and consolidation

Community Facilities District (CFD) 

A Community Facilities District is an area specially designated by a municipality to issue general 

obligation bonds, special assessment bonds and revenue bonds or any combination thereof, that are 

repaid with a mechanism that taxes (or assesses) only the lands directly benefitted by the new 

infrastructure. CFDs are formed to finance the construction or acquisition of certain designated capital 

facilities (infrastructure) and/or to finance public services by levying special taxes included in the CFD. 

This allows much needed community development which would otherwise be unfeasible due to the 

prohibitive costs imposed by extensive infrastructure burdens. CFD taxes are collected as direct levies on 

property tax bills of included parcels. 

Applicability: Water and sewer projects, police and fire facilities (and sites), public buildings (and sites), 

flood control and drainage projects, street facilities/roadways, public parking structures, landscaping, 

lighting and traffic control, parks and recreational facilities, schools and school sites, pedestrian malls, 

enhanced public services 

Designation of a Redevelopment Area under Arizona Statute 

Arizona redevelopment law is bound in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 36-1471, “Slum Clearance and 

Redevelopment.” State statutes recognize the need for redevelopment of blighted areas and allows for 

the development of a “slum clearance and redevelopment commission”, or form of redevelopment 

committee. Redevelopment initiatives require the preparation of a redevelopment plan – its contents 

prescribed in the statute – and its adoption into the municipal general plan. Then, a municipality may 

begin to acquire property for redevelopment purposes and fund redevelopment initiatives. 

“Slum and blight” is define by an area in which there is significant evidence of buildings or other 

improvements (e.g., streets, sidewalks, lighting) which, because of age or other reasons, have 

deteriorated, are inadequate, unsafe, impair sound growth, and retard economic development. 

Examples of “blight” include inadequate street layout, substandard lotting, and the existence of many 

owners, making parcel assembly difficult for development. Examples of “slum” include unsafe structural 

conditions (fire hazard), crime, unsanitary sewer conditions, and the existence of water, soils, and noise 

pollution. 

While many options exist to finance redevelopment projects, public projects must be consistent with 

other public facility project funding, which requires the approval of the voters through the electoral 

process. 

Applicability: May be used for encouraging and promoting new development or redevelopment within 
69 

the station district, central business district, or activity center if it qualifies as a redevelopment area

Developer Fees and Exactions 

(Impact fees, system development charges, facility fees, infrastructure reimbursement agreements, 

developer exactions) 

Development impact fees and exactions are charges assessed on new development to defray the cost to 

the jurisdiction of expanding and extending public services to the development. The fees are generally 

collected once and are used on a pay-as-you-go basis to offset the cost of providing public infrastructure 

and facilities such as new streets, utilities and other public facilities. Because they are one time fees, 

they cannot be used for ongoing facility operations and maintenance. 

Applicability: Public infrastructure and facilities development (e.g., streets, potable water, sanitary 

sewer, storm drainage, libraries, parks, and police and fire stations) 

Joint Development 

Joint development is the primary value capture mechanism transit agencies commonly use. It is 

generally applied to a real estate development project that involves coordination among multiple 

parties to develop sites near transit, usually on publicly-owned land, and can take many forms, ranging 

from an agreement to develop land owned by the transit agency to joint financing and development of a 

project that incorporates both public facilities (e.g., parking garages) and private development. Typically 

the transit agency and the private developer will agree to share costs of and revenue from the project. 

Applicability: Real estate projects, affordable housing development, parking, public amenities as part of 

development projects 

Public-Private Partnership 

Public-private partnerships are contractual agreements between a public agency and a private-sector 

entity whereby “the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service 

or facility for the use of the general public.” In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in 

the risks and rewards in the delivery of the service and/or facility. In a typical public-private partnership, 

the private entity provides the capital cost to finance a public project, such as a parking facility, toll road, 

or airport, then collects some portion of the revenue generated by the project. In most public-private 

partnerships, the public sector partner guarantees payment to the private sector partner even if the 

project does not deliver the expected level of revenue or if the expected revenue does not cover the 

entire cost of debt repayment. 

Applicability: Large roadway projects, mixed-use development, high-rise residential towers with 

affordable housing component. 

70 

8.5.3 Emerging Community Development and Infrastructure Financing Tools 

Structured Funds 

Structured funds are investment funds that are configured with an intentional mixture of both fixedincome securities as well as equity products. The general idea behind this type of fund configuration is 

to provide the investor with the security that is provided by the fixed-income assets, since those assets 

can help offset potential losses sustained with the up and down movement of the equity securities. At 

the same time, the inclusion of the equity securities allows the investor to generate significant returns 

when and as those equities appreciate. Structured funds pool money from different investors with 

varying risks and return profiles. Communities have been increasingly interested in using structured 

funds as a property acquisition tool to support affordable housing, particularly near transit. 

Applicability: Specific real estate development projects (e.g., affordable housing, mixed-use 

development) near transit stations 

Land Banks 

Land assembly and acquisition can be a challenge for TOD because land near transit is often scarce and 

generally of high costs. Although not a financing tool, communities’ interest in the applicability of land 

banks to TOD has been growing in an effort to find additional property acquisition tools. While land 

banks have not typically been used for TOD infrastructure, assembling developable land in station areas 

could make TOD and the associated infrastructure projects more feasible. 

Applicability: Neighborhood stabilization and revitalization, affordable housing development 

Redfields to Greenfields 

Redfields to Greenfields is a concept of converting underused or distressed properties into an asset. A 

local municipality acquires underused properties (redfields) and converts them to new parks 

(greenfields). Redfields to Greenfields is not tied to any particular funding or financing source; in fact, 

the municipality would have to identify a funding source to pay for property acquisition and to convert 

the property into a park, which could include parks that are a part of a mixed-use TOD project. The new 

park could boost property values of surrounding properties, increasing property tax revenue. 

Applicability: Public space development used to incentivize adjacent real estate development. 

Government Property Lease Excise Tax 

The Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) is an excise tax based on the square footage of the 

building, rather than on value. It is to be collected by the city where the property is located. GPLET 

applies to properties when: 

The building (or parking structure) is owned of record by a city, town, or county. 

The building or other structure is leased in whole or part by a private party. 
71 

The leased space is occupied and used for commercial or industrial purposes, including but not 

limited to, office, retail, restaurant, service business, hotel, entertainment, recreational or 

parking uses. 

The structure of a GPLET involves deeding property to a local government. This results in the property 

being removed from the property tax rolls. The property is then leased back to the private owner with a 

lease that confers all incidents of ownership. The government merely holds title, but has no financial 

responsibility for the property. Such properties enjoy a cheaper property tax rate than privately-owned 

properties. 

The favored use of GPLET is for major downtown or commercial redevelopment projects. Such projects, 

if located in a redevelopment area of the municipality, are exempt from the GPLET tax for a period of 

eight years from receiving a certificate of occupancy. This exemption essentially confers an eight year 

tax abatement on such development as an explicit, legislatively-conferred, redevelopment incentive. 

Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) 

The Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA program is sponsored by the Arizona Department of 

Transportation Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) and provides federal funds to assist tribal 

governments and counties, cities and towns located outside Transportation Management Area (TMA) 

planning boundaries with multimodal transportation planning needs. 

PARA funds are limited to planning applications and may not be used for the design or construction of 

transportation facilities. PARA funds may be applied to address a broad range of planning issues related 

to roadway and non-motorized transportation modes. Funds may also be applied to studies dedicated 

solely to the planning of public transportation services. PARA funds can be used for station area 

planning studies where the total project cost is $50,000 or less. 

8.5.4 Infrastructure Financing Tools Used in Other States 

Tax increment financing (TIF) 

TIF captures the increase in property tax revenue (and, in some states, sales tax revenue) that occurs in 

a designated area after a set year. Tax Increment Financing dedicates tax increments within a certain 

defined district to finance the debt that is issued to pay for the project. TIF was designed to channel 

funding toward improvements in distressed, underdeveloped, or underutilized parts of a jurisdiction 

where development might otherwise not occur. TIF creates funding for public or private projects by 

borrowing against the future increase in these property-tax revenues. The tax increment is collected for 

an established period (usually between 15 and 30 years) and the tax increment can be used to secure 

bonds, allowing the issuer to collect the money up front, or it can be used on a pay-as-you-go basis over 

time. TIF is most commonly used for local infrastructure, environmental cleanup, and land assembly. 

Applicability: Public amenities, streetscape and landscaping, parking, affordable housing development 

72 

Chapter 9. Other Resources

Transportation agencies in other states have developed similar guidance for station area planning in 

their local communities with standards specific to their regional/local context. Similarly other agencies 

within Arizona have prepared important reference documents that can be very helpful to communities 

in Arizona that are planning for rail stations and supporting transit/transportation infrastructure. This 

section provides information about some such resources that may serve as additional reference. 

Sustainable Transportation & Land Use Integration Study (STLUIS), Maricopa Association of 

Governments, AZ 

The MAG Sustainable Transportation and 

Land Use Integration Study is a recently 

completed project that answers questions 

such as: How can transit investments 

increase the MAG region’s economic 

competitiveness? What is sustainable 

transportation and how does it fit into the 

region’s future? Which development 

policies can encourage transit-supportive 

places? And what kinds of transportation 

investments can support sustainable 

neighborhoods and business districts 

“without” high-cost transit investment? 

The study builds on previous MAG studies that identified the need to better coordinate regional 

transportation planning with land use decisions, growing interest in sustainability by MAG member 

agencies, and greater emphasis on sustainability in transportation funding criteria. The study focuses on 

high-capacity transit within the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

A very relevant product of this study is the “Community Pathways to Sustainable Transportation” tool, 

which is an interactive tool designed to help users understand what actions need to be put in place to 

develop transit-supportive land uses by assessing their community’s current status and future vision for 

land use, urban design and transportation using a variety of planning data, focusing on community subareas such as a station area, employment center, downtown, or neighborhood. This tool is 

complemented by the Prototypes Catalogue, which includes illustrations of model and actual 

development projects that support sustainable transportation. 

Web URL: http://www.bqaz.org/pdf/sustainable/BQAZ-STLU_2013-03-29_Key-Findings-andRecommendations.pdf

 
73 

Pinal County Activity Center Guidelines and Draft Zoning Ordinance, Pinal County, AZ 

In 2009, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan. This plan 

involved a tremendous amount of public input, resulting in a comprehensive vision for future 

development of the county. A core element of the land use plan was the organization of the county into 

various activity centers – mixed-use developments that incorporate residential, commercial/service, and 

employment uses, as well as cultural amenities. These clusters were organized at different scales and 

could have different foci, depending on their location (e.g., more industrial/logistics-oriented, 

commerce centers, tourism, etc.). 

The “Pinal County Activity Center Development Guidelines” seek to provide development parameters 

for the different scales and types of proposed activity centers. These guidelines were codified in an 

updated Pinal County Zoning Ordinance, which has a specific chapter dedicated to three intensities of 

activity center zoning districts. 

The Activity Center Development Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance provide a foundation for urban form 

guidance relative to station area site selection in Pinal County, although an additional level of 

refinement and new policy recommendations will be required for sufficient transit readiness. Once 

accepted in Pinal County, it would be the intent for local jurisdictions to equally adopt the revised zoning 

language to provide a consistent manner of activity center development region-wide. 

Web URL:

http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopment/Documents/Activity%20Center%20Devel

opment%20Guideline%20Manual.FINAL.pdf

Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail, USDOT Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) 

This station area planning document is a reference tool for state 

transportation departments and local and regional jurisdictions 

working in partnership with transportation agencies 

implementing high-speed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) 

projects. The document includes topics, concepts and ideas to 

assist local jurisdictions and others accomplish successful station 

area planning and achieve an optimal integration of the station in 

its context; to ensure ridership growth; and to capture livability, 

sustainability, and economic benefits. This document also 

provides three common principles and recommended strategies 

for the creation of places that invite people to stay and enjoy, and 

that enhance the economy and sustainability of the region. 

Web URL: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L03759

74 

Station Area Planning Manual, Center for Transit-Oriented Development 

This manual is intended to serve as a companion to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s TOD 

Policy for Priority Development Areas under the Focusing Our Vision program, to assist jurisdictions in 

the San Francisco Bay area with decision-making as they complete planning efforts around transit hubs 

and corridors. The Station Area Planning Manual provides a good description of various place 

types/station typology (particularly the range of place types, from regional center to transit town 

center), with suggested target densities for housing and commercial developments. 

Web URL: http://www.bayareavision.org/pdaapplication/Station_Area_Planning_Manual_Nov07.pdf

Urban Design Guidelines, California High-Speed Train (CAHST) Project 

These urban design guidelines are intended to assist local jurisdictions and to integrate the CAHST 

project into their communities. The guidelines are based upon international examples where cities and 

transit agencies have incorporated sound urban design principles as integral elements of large-scale 

transportation systems. The document provides urban design techniques that will promote successful 

high-speed rail. The urban design techniques include guidance to create context sensitive solutions (CSS) 

that are specific to and reflect the characteristics of each geographic zone, emphasize development of a 

pedestrian influence area within one-quarter to one-half mile of the station, and focus on preservation 

of specific areas as well as infill and redevelopment. 

Web URL: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/269/a89ed24f-b312-4cf4-b7d1-

059541bb57f1.pdf

Community Plan, Urban Land Institute, Arizona 

Community Plan is a resource for communities and regions to learn 

the foundational aspects and finer nuances of issues affecting land 

use, planning, and development. Community Plan is intended to 

build leadership capacity for informed local decision-making to 

enhance sustainable communities. Community Plan is a partnership 

of eight statewide organizations who have come together to lead 

this educational curriculum for public officials. Partners include the 

Urban Land Institute-Arizona District Council, the Arizona Chapter 

of the American Planning Association, the Arizona Departments of 

Housing, Transportation, and Health Services, the Arizona 

Association for Economic Development, the League of Arizona 

Cities and Towns, and the County Supervisors Association of 

Arizona. 

Community Plan is a 2- to 4-hour interactive workshop for public officials that provides effective tools 

for addressing important community and regional issues. The workshops are intended to develop a 
75 

better understanding of land use planning and zoning, housing, multimodal transportation and mobility, 

real estate development, economic development, and, finance and infrastructure; outline the 

connectivity between community building blocks (high capacity transit, land use, pedestrian-friendly 

streetscape), their importance within the community or region, and the necessity for using a holistic 

approach to achieve long-term goals; create a toolbox of information, case studies, and online resources 

that can enhance community decision-making; and, develop an action plan to apply what was learned. 

Web URL: http://arizona.uli.org/community/communityplan/

Reinvent PHX, City of Phoenix 

Reinvent PHX is a collaborative partnership between the City of Phoenix, the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Arizona State University (ASU), St. Luke’s Health Initiatives and 

local organizations committed to growing a sustainable city. The Reinvent Phoenix program aims to 

eliminate physical and institutional barriers to TOD and catalyze livable, sustainable development 

through planning, regulatory reform, innovative infrastructure designs, economic development 

incentives, capacity building, and affordable housing implementation activities; demonstrate regional 

benefits of transit oriented development through the design and implementation of pilot projects for 

economic development, housing and infrastructure; and involve residents in identifying strategic 

improvements that will enhance safe, convenient access to quality, affordable housing; well-paying jobs; 

education and training programs; fresh food and healthcare services. 

Web URL: http://phoenix.gov/pdd/reinventphx.html

Imagine Greater Tucson, Tucson, Arizona 

Imagine Greater Tucson is a collaborative, community-driven effort 

that fosters collaboration towards a regional vision and aligns the 

region’s future with the shared regional values. In 2008, a group of 

community members, business and civic leaders, jurisdictional 

representatives, local organizations, and others came together to 

discuss the critical needs for the region’s future. Imagine Greater 

Tucson (IGT) was launched to listen to the community and create this 

shared Vision based on the values and goals of the residents. Imagine 

Greater Tucson has three main phases. TALK. THINK. ACT. The IGT 

process began in October 2010 by listening to residents through 

group conversations and surveys to learn what they value as a region. 

Next, IGT asked people to think about and express how future growth 

can be accommodated in the region in accordance with the shared 

values. 

Web URL: http://www.imaginegreatertucson.org/

76 

Sustainable Communities Collaborative, Arizona 

The Sustainable Communities Collaborative (SCC) is a non-profit partnership powered by a privatelyfinanced fund. SCC is creating an economic catalyst for three Valley cities (Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe) 

connected to the Valley METRO light rail. The SCC has taken a lead in promoting Transit-Oriented 

Development (TOD) along the Light Rail Transit (LRT) alignment. The SCC has attracted a combined $20 

million of private investment from two key partners: Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and 

Raza Development Fund (RDF). In June 2011, SCC joined the Mayors from Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa 

and the President/CEOs of LISC and RDF to launch the $20 million Sustainable Communities Fund. The 

SCC’s policy focus is on stimulating affordable housing, promoting public health, encouraging sustainable 

community development, providing financial tools for TOD, and realizing a complete multimodal 

transportation network within its program area. 

Web Link: http://www.sustainablecommunitiescollaborative.com/
 

Biological Resources Appendix





























Cultural Resources Appendix
Cultural Resources Appendix-1 

Cultural Resources Appendix

This appendix provides information about the cultural resource studies and cultural sites 

recorded within the passenger rail corridor alternatives. Table C-1 lists the prior cultural 

resource studies that are known to intersect the Yellow or Orange corridor alternatives. Table 

C-2 lists the recorded sites. The tables are followed by a bibliography of sources from which 

they were developed. 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

12-145.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-150.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-163.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-169.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-190.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-19-8.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-19-9.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

12-56.BLM Unknown Unknown AZSITE

1955-3.ASM Southern Pacific Pipeline 

Survey

2 – AZ AA:6:47 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:5 (ASM)

Komerska and 

Breternitz 1955

1973-13.ASM Salt-Gila Survey 0 Grady 1973

1974-16.ASM Cholla-Saguaro Transmission 

Line

0 Teague and Mayro 

1974

1975-6.ASM Bechtel Inc.-Ina Road Water 

Pollution Control Facility 

Survey

0 AZSITE PRF – no 

reference listed

1976-1.ASM Cañada del Oro Sewer 0 Brew and Rogge 1976

1979-38.ASM Santa Cruz River Park Survey 10 – AZ AA:12:85 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:91 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:99 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:103 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:104 (ASM); 

AZ BB:13:85 (ASM);

AZ BB:13:86 (ASM); 

AZ BB:13:87 (ASM); 

AZ BB:13:88 (ASM); 

AZ BB:13:110 (ASM)

Betancourt 1978

1979-39.ASM TG+E Northern Tucson 

Transmission Line Survey

0 Rozen 1979

1980-11.ASM Horizon Hills, Phase II 0 Urban 1980
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-2 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1980-89.ASM State Land Survey - ADOT 1 – AZ AA:7:24 (ASM) AZSITE PRF – no 

reference listed

1980-143.ASM Oshrin Intercept Survey 0 Huckell and Brew 1980

1980-152.ASM Denny Dunn Neighborhood 

Park Survey

0 Brew 1980

1980-155.ASM Santa Cruz/SW Interceptor 

Project

0 Adams et al. 1980

1980-163.ASM TRICO Surveys 0 Czaplicki 1980

1980-242.ASM TEP Tortolita-South Utility 

Corridor and Alt. Routes

0 Wilson 1980

1980-249.ASM Tucson Aqueduct Phase A -

CAP

3 – AZ AA:7:6 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:32 (ASM); 

AZ AA:7:33 (ASM)

McCarthy 1982

1981-154.ASM TEP Tortolita-South 

Realignment Survey

0 Wilson 1981

1981-174.ASM The Northern Tucson Basin 

Survey: Phase I

1 – AZ AA:12:876 (ASM) Fish et al. 1992;

Madsen et al. 1993

1982-6.ASM El Oasis Apartments 0 Urban 1982a

1982-34.ASM CAP Tucson Aqueduct Phase A 

Class III Survey

0 Czaplicki 1983

1982-108.ASM Marana Canning Co., Inc. 1 – AZ AA:12:369 (ASM) Urban 1982b

1982-156.ASM Adonis Mobile Home SubDivision1 – AZ AA:12:382 (ASM) Urban 1982c

1982-160.ASM Tucson Aqueduct Phase A

Class III Survey, Reach 3

0 Czaplicki et al. 1982

1982-207.ASM Tucson-Apache 115 kV 

Transmission Line

0 Hammack 1983

1983-45.ASM Southern Pacific Pipe Line Inc. 0 Madsen 1983

1983-78.ASM Tucson Low Income Housing 0 Urban 1983

1983-95.ASM Proposed I-10 – SR 210 

Interchange Area, West of 

Granada Avenue: the Aviation 

Corridor Project

3 – AZ BB:13:157 (ASM);

AZ BB:13:158 (ASM);

AZ BB:13:159 (ASM)

Dart 1983

1983-198.ASM Northern Tucson Basin Survey 

Marana, Phase II

1 – AZ AA:12:876 (ASM) Fish et al. 1992;

Madsen et al. 1993

1984-31.ASM Trico-Marana Survey 0 Castalia 1984

1984-85.ASM Naviska Rest Area Test Wells 1 – AZ AA:11:30 (ASM) Rosenberg 1984

1984-97.ASM New Right-of-Way, I-10 at 

Rillito Creek

0 Sires 1984

1984-183.ASM Tucson Aqueduct 0 Lincoln 1984
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-3 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1985-91.ASM Bowie-Marana Surveys 0 Sires 1985

1985-150.ASM El Rio Survey 2 – AZ BB:13:319 (ASM); AZ 

BB:13:320 (ASM)

Dart 1985

1985-160.ASM Tucson Aqueduct 0 Lincoln 1985

1985-167.ASM Western Area Power 

Administration's Saguaro to 

Tucson Reconductoring

0 Effland and Green 1985

1985-188.ASM Orange Grove Road 1 – AZ AA:12:20 (ASM) Swidler 1985

1986-41.ASM CAP Distribution Systems 

Central Arizona Central Main 

Canal

0 Quillian 1988

1986-109.ASM Tucson Aqueduct Project -

Phase B

0 AZSITE

1986-167.ASM Halbert Industrial Park Survey 1 – AZ AA:12:503 (ASM) Gregonis 1986

1987-205.ASM Orange Grove/ I-10/ SPRR 

Flood Control

0 Mayro 1987a

1987-214.ASM Santa Cruz River Improvement

District

0 Mayro 1987b

1987-216.ASM Santa Cruz River Survey,

St. Mary's to Fort Lowell

0 Mayro 1987c

1987-221.ASM SCR Improvement D.3MLT 0 Mayro 1987d

1987-222.ASM U.S. Telecom Buried Fiber 

Optic Cable

0 O’Brien et al. 1987

1987-237.ASM Tangerine Road 0 Stone and Bontrager 

1987

1988-24.ASM Ina Road - I-10 1 – AZ AA:12:688 (ASM) Bontrager 1988a

1988-87.ASM Tangerine Road Survey 0 Maldonado 1988

1988-158.ASM Picacho Peak 12kV

Distribution

0 Macnider 1988

1988-167.ASM Tangerine Road West 0 Bontrager 1988b

1988-189.ASM Tucson-Grant Road 0 Curtis 1988

1988-247.ASM;

1989-217.ASM

Central Arizona Irrigation and 

Drainage District, South Main 

Canal Alignment

0 Van Nimwegen and 

Henderson 1991a 

1989-2.ASM Rillito Testing Project 6 – AZ AA:12:10 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:21 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:689 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:690 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:691 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:692 (ASM)

Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-4 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1989-168.ASM Tangerine Road Survey 0 Heuett 1989

1989-190.ASM West Speedway Survey and 

Testing

0 Huckell 1989

1990-40.ASM Orange Grove Road Survey 0 Troncone 1990

1990-77.ASM Community Center Reclaimed 

Water Main

0 Mabry 1990

1990-173.ASM ADOT I-10 Corridor Survey 3 – AZ AA:12:11 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:13 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:736 (ASM)

Bernard-Shaw 1990

1991-40.ASM Orange Grove Extension 

Survey

0 Grenda 1991

1991-42.ASM Ted Walker Regional Park and 

Proposed Equestrian Staging 

Area

1 – AZ AA:12:739 (ASM) Albright 1991

1991-88.ASM Glenn-Fairview Main 

Replacement

0 Eppley 1991a

1991-91.ASM Archaeological Survey of 

Fairview Avenue - Grant Road 

to 15th Avenue Widening

0 Eppley 1991b

1991-109.ASM CAP Pressure Regulating Valve 

Stations Survey

0 Slawson 1991

1991-111.ASM Lower Santa Cruz Levee 

Survey

0 Harry 1991

1991-165.ASM Orange Grove/Thornydale

Arch. Assessment

0 Doelle 1991

1991-185.ASM Recharge Monitor Wells 

Survey

0 Mabry 1991

1991-234.ASM TRICO Survey 0 Doak 1991

1992-62.ASM Rillito Loop 0 Adams and Macnider 

1992

1992-179.ASM Archaeological Survey For 

Proposed Boundary Fence at 

Picacho Peak State Park

0 Montero 1992

1992-239.ASM Tucson-Phoenix III 2 – AZ AA:7:464 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:465 (ASM)

Crary 1992

1992-270.ASM State Route 84/Casa Grande –

Eloy

2 – AZ Z:2:40 (ASM);

AZ AA:2:118 (ASM)

Wright 1992

1992-289.ASM Red Rock Loop 2 – AZ AA:7:462 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:463 (ASM)

Crary and Macnider 

1992

1993-38.ASM Cowtown Survey 0 Slawson 1993
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-5 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1993-88.ASM Plane Avenue Survey 0 Eppley 1993

1993-89.ASM Archaeological Surveys at Four 

1993 Flood Repair Locations

0 Goetze 1993

1993-205.ASM ADOT I-10/Rillito Creek 0 Duff 1993

1993-236.ASM Ronstadt/Splinter Brothers’ 

Warehouse Survey

0 Thiel 1993

1994-113.ASM Ina Road Survey 1 – AZ AA:12:798 (ASM) Slawson 1994

1994-129.ASM MSP Survey 0 Roth 1994

1994-136.ASM I-10 – Ina Road to Hartman 

Lane Survey

0 Swartz 1994a

1994-137.ASM I-10 – Canada del Oro Survey 0 Swartz 1994b

1994-245.ASM I-10 Canada del Oro Survey 0 Freeman 1994a

1994-248.ASM Golf Academy Survey 0 Freeman 1994b

1994-279.ASM Oracle-Tucson 115-kV 

Transmission

1 – AZ BB:5:123 (ASM) Brown and Rohman 

1994

1994-318.ASM Santa Cruz Bikepath Survey 0 Freeman 1994c

1994-415.ASM Environmental Restoration 

Survey

1 – AZ AA:6:51 (ASM) Roberts 1994

1994-424.ASM Cortaro Farms Road 0 Myers and Slaughter 

1994

1994-472.ASM Avra Valley Survey 0 Slaughter and Bierer 

1994

1995-214.ASM Cortaro Road 0 Stone 1995

1995-330.ASM Juhan Park Survey 0 Swartz 1995

1995-340.ASM Tangerine Road/Marana 0 Tweedy and Woodall 

1995

1995-390.ASM Cortaro Road Survey 0 Noll and Myers 1995

1995-392.ASM Speedway/Ajo Pipeline Survey 0 Swartz 1996

1995-394.ASM Granite Testing 1 – AZ AA:12:788 (ASM) Wallace 1995

1995-395.ASM Santa Cruz Levee 0 Rieder 1995

1995-465.ASM Court Avenue Monitoring 0 Tompkins 1995

1995-470.ASM Maricopa-Saguaro 115-kV 

Transmission Line

1 – AZ AA:1:95 (ASM) Moreno et al. 1996

1996-13.ASM Silverbell and Ina Testing and 

Monitoring

0 Lindeman et al. 1996

1996-14.ASM Sun Tran Survey 1 – AZ AA:12:801 (ASM) Wallace 1996a

1996-44.ASM Cortaro-Ina Sewerline Survey 0 AZ AA:12:100 (ASM) Wallace 1996b

1996-91.ASM Miracle Mile-Oracle Road 0 Woodall 1996

1996-145.ASM Thornydale Road Survey 0 Rieder and Myers 1996
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-6 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1996-219.ASM Southern Pacific Railroad 

Survey

0 Rosenzwieg 1996

1996-283.ASM Ft. Lowell/Santa Cruz Survey 0 Freeman 1996

1996-366.ASM River and Thornydale Survey 0 Terzis 1996

1996-399.ASM Tangerine Road R.O.W. Sec 6 

& 31 Project

0 Stephen 1996a

1996-476.ASM Red Roof Inn at Ina 0 Stephen 1996b

1996-477.ASM Ina/Trico 0 Stephen 1996c

1996-480.ASM Miscellaneous Monitoring for 

Southwest Gas

0 Lindeman 1996

1997-75.ASM Interstate-8/Picacho-Red Rock 0 Lite and Cadiente 1997

1997-161.ASM Red Rock Drill Holes Survey 

(SVS#6)

0 Jones 1997

1997-184.ASM Saguaro-Oracle-Coolidge 

Survey

1 – AZ AA:8:366 (ASM) Lindeman 1997

1997-475.ASM AAtlas Storage 1 – AZ AA:12:820 (ASM) Stephen 1997

1997-523.ASM Red Rock Survey 3 – AZ AA:7:492 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:494 (ASM); 

AZ AA:10:19 (ASM)

Mason-Kohlmeyer 

1998

1998-38.ASM Broadway Boulevard/6th 

Avenue Water Main Survey

0 Vint 1998

1998-86.ASM MTSO Cellular One 0 Aguila 1998

1998-143.ASM 818 N. 11th Ave. Survey 0 Sliva 1998

1998-147.ASM Sun Tran Access Survey 0 Wallace 1998

1998-244.ASM ADOT – Tucson I 1 – AZ AA:12:830 (ASM) Larkin et al. 1998

1998-267.ASM Miracle Manor Survey 0 Diehl 1998a

1998-271.ASM Rio Nuevo Center Survey 0 Diehl 1998b

1998-272.ASM Treasure Chest Survey 0 Diehl 1998c

1998-439.ASM I-10 (Milepost 175.8-226) 0 Barz 1998

1998-556.ASM Gary Brown Survey 1 – AZ AA:12:836 (ASM) Fratt 1998

1998-559.ASM Cochise and Pinal Counties 

Survey

0 Fratt and Rude 1999

1999-45.ASM Parsons Fenceline, Corral 0 Rozen 1999

1999-55.ASM Prince Road – I-10 to 

1st Avenue Survey

0 Diehl 1999a

1999-92.ASM Back to Basics - Barrio Anita 

Survey

0 Diehl 1999b

1999-99.ASM University Blvd./6th Ave. Main 

Survey

0 Diehl 1999c

1999-145.ASM Sun Tran Access Survey 0 Wallace 1999
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-7 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

1999-158.ASM Walmart Survey 0 Duff 1999

1999-182.ASM Cortaro Rd Design Concept 0 Archer and Wellman 

1999

1999-326.ASM Jusnic Estates 13.97 Acre 

Survey (99SVS26)

0 Jones 1999

1999-340.ASM Barrio Anita Monitoring 0 Hall 1999

1999-343.ASM Court and Meyer at 6th Street 

Survey

0 Diehl 1999d

1999-357.ASM Gravel Pits Survey 0 Vint 1999a and 1999b

1999-362.ASM Phase I of the Tucson Freeway 

Management System

1 – AZ BB:13:425 (ASM) Hill and Garcia 1999

1999-389.ASM Lon Adams Road Dental Office 0 Stephen 1999

1999-515.ASM Costco Survey 0 Fratt and Hayes 2000

1999-587.ASM PBNS Level 3 Fiber Optic Line 5 – AZ AA:6:69 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:536 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:857 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:858 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:859 (ASM)

Doak 1999

2000-16.ASM Marana/Honea Heights 

Colonia WWM SewerlineCultural Resources 

Assessment

0 Jones 2000a

2000-140.ASM KMEP Arizona Anomaly Repair 

Project

0 Self 2000 and 2001

2000-154.ASM Blue Moon Park Survey 0 Wocherl 2000

2000-166.ASM Pipeline Anomaly Digs Project 0 Bauer and Rogge 2000

2000-253.ASM Saguaro Power Plant Facilities 0 Punzmann 2000

2000-284.ASM Moratorium Streets Survey 0 Diehl 2000

2000-319.ASM Ina and Camino del Oeste 

Survey

0 Thurtle 2000

2000-565.ASM Marana/Honea Heights 

Colonia WWM Sewerline

0 Jones 2001a

2000-589.ASM Kinder Morgan Anomaly Digs 

#4

0 Ramos et al. 2001a

2000-590.ASM Kinder Morgan Anomaly Digs 

#3

0 Ramos et al. 2001b

2000-592.ASM Dove Mtn. Offsite Sewer 

(ASLD # 18-105008)

0 Stephen 2000a
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-8 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2000-621.ASM Marana Circ. 15 & 16 Rebuild 

and Avra Valley Tie Line 

Project

0 Hesse and Archer 2000

2000-630.ASM Demoss Petrie Substation 

Testing at 2501 N. Flowing 

Wells Road (DPT)

0 Jones 2000b

2000-723.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project 

Link 3 Class 3 Survey

2 – AZ AA:12:51 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:252 (ASM)

Kearns et al. 2001

2000-784.ASM La Cholla @ Santa Cruz River 0 Stephen 2000b

2000-822.ASM Tucson Maintenance – I-10 1 – AZ AA:12:870 (ASM) Barnes and Wright 

2001

2001-6.ASM AZ-Cortaro – I-10 

Communications Tower 

Survey (ERMS#2)

0 Jones 2001b

2001-42.ASM Cortaro Farms Survey 0 Brack 2001a

2001-128.ASM TRICO ARCO Farms Overhead 

Power Line Conversion

0 Neves 2001

2001-154.ASM Orange Grove Road from 

Thornydale Road to Corona 

Road Survey

0 Kaldahl and Dart 2001

2001-157.ASM Apex Plant 0 Wright 2001

2001-244.ASM Fire Station 4 Survey (West 

Grant Road)

0 Diehl 2001

2001-245.ASM Silverbell Landfill Monitor Well 

Survey

0 Hall 2001

2001-270.ASM KB 15-Acre Survey 0 Hayes and Olsson 2001

2001-366.ASM Owl Head Survey 0 Slawson 2001a

2001-404.ASM DPS 0 Brack 2001b

2001-406.ASM Surveys of Six Proposed 

Reroutes for a Proposed Fiber 

Optic Cable ROW

4 – AZ AA:7:503 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:506 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:741 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:875 (ASM)

Baker and Webb 2001

2001-499.ASM Debbie Cell Tower Survey 0 Slawson 2001b

2001-553.ASM Commerce Ave. 0 Stephen 2001a

2001-580.ASM TEP Pole Replacement 0 Fuller 2001

2001-628.ASM Northwest Quadrant Main 

Survey

0 Cook 2001

2001-654.ASM Section 5 0 Stephen 2001b

2001-662.ASM Church Development Plan 0 Stephen 2001c

2001-713.ASM Jct. SR 84 – Coolidge SR 287 1 – AZ AA:6:91 (ASM) Touchin 2001
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-9 

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2001-716.ASM Survey of Three Op Amp 

Facilities

0 Baker and Kearns 2001

2001-783.ASM Tangerine Road ROW 

Archaeological Survey

1 – AZ AA:12:686 (ASM) Hesse 2001

2002-18.ASM Grant West of I-10 Monitoring 1 – AZ BB:13:23 (ASM) Diehl 2002b

2002-98.ASM Main and 6th Monitoring 0 Diehl 2002c

2002-124.ASM Town of Marana Santa Cruz 

River Trail Phase II paved path 

cultural resources survey 

(02SVS#11)

0 McKee and Dart 2002a

2002-128.ASM Town of Marana Santa Cruz 

River Trail Phase I and II Dirt 

Path Cultural Resources 

Survey

1 – AZ AA:12:912 (ASM) McKee and Dart 2002b

2002-363.ASM Red Rock Assessment 

supplemental ca. 282-acre 

Cultural Resources Survey in 

Sections 4, 5, 8, & 9

0 Jones and Dart 2002

2003-36.ASM Main Street Monitoring 0 Diehl 2002a

2003-232.ASM I-10, Miracle Mile - Oracle 

Highway

0 Touchin and Brodbeck 

2003

2003-316.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project 

Link 3 Second Rillito River 

Reroute

0 Smith and Wheeler 

2003a 

2003-366.ASM 2425 W. Wave Hill Court, 

1.89-Acre Cultural Resources 

Survey

1 – AZ AA:12:18 (ASM) Jones and Dart 2003b

2003-367.ASM Arizona Portland Cement 

105-Acre Expansion Survey

0 Lyon and Lascaux 2002

2003-397.ASM Thornydale Widening Survey 0 Diehl 2003c

2003-453.ASM Pegler Wash Park Extension 0 Knoblock and Fahrni 

2003

2003-474.ASM EPNG Line 1007 Survey 0 Hesse and Chenault 

2003

2003-506.ASM Stone Ave - 6th to 1st

Assessment

0 Diehl 2003d

2003-517.ASM Sagebrush Survey 0 Moses 2003b

2003-896.ASM Old Pascua Neighborhood 

Survey

0 Diehl 2003b
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-10

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2003-910.ASM Cultural Resources Survey of 

the 360 Networks Fiber Optics 

Lines

11 – AZ AA:7:523 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:92 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:111 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:256 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:258 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:370 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:486 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:683 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:742 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:871 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:872 (ASM)

Railey and Yost 2001

2003-948.ASM TRICO Marana Estates Rebuild 

Project

1 – AZ AA:12:685 (ASM) Twilling and Hesse 

2003

2003-1070.ASM EPNG Tucson Class III Survey 7 – AZ AA:7:30 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:510 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:511 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:512 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:513 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:514 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:515 (ASM)

Hesse and Gutierrez 

2004

2003-1073.ASM Tangerine Road Extension 

Survey

0 Hesse 2003

2003-1137.ASM Sandario Road Survey 0 Klucas 2002

2003-1257.ASM Joplin Road 0 Moses 2003a

2003-1262.ASM KMEP Phase II Pipeline 

Replacement Project and 

KMEP Line Section 53/54 

Anomaly 1 Repair

1 – AZ AA:12:16 (ASM) Estes et al. 2004b

2003-1264.ASM I-10 Geotech Monitoring 0 Terhune and Garcia 

2007

2003-1281.ASM Grant/Ft. Lowell Survey 1 – AZ AA:12:862 (ASM) Sterner 2001

2003-1287.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project 

Link 3 Rillito Reroute Survey

0 Smith and Wheeler 

2003b

2003-1361.ASM Access Road for the Desert 

Energy Project

0 Bassett 2002a

2003-1479.ASM 629 W. Mabel Survey 0 Diehl 2003a

2003-1548.ASM KMEP 12 Anomaly Digs, LS 

53/54

2 – AZ AA:7:520 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:953 (ASM)

Estes et al. 2004a

2003-1571.ASM Shoppes at Orange Grove & 

River

0 Jones and Dart 2003a
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-11

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2003-1590.ASM Desert Energy Power Plant 

Project

1 – AZ AA:7:527 (ASM) Bassett 2002b

2004-7.ASM TJ Bednar 0 DeJongh and Thurtle 

2003

2004-133.ASM Lattamore Well Lot Survey 0 Petersen 2004

2004-314.ASM The Pines Sec 27 Unknown Doak 2004

2004-324.ASM Corrosion Prevention Project 

Assessment and Survey

0 Diehl 2003e

2004-526.ASM Rillito Apex Plant Unknown AZSITE; no PRF 

available

2004-535.ASM Cortaro Farms Widening 

Survey

0 Brack 2004

2004-627.ASM Add. D: El Paso to Los Angeles 

Fiber Optic Cable Project: GRIC 

Alt B Reroute

0 Newsome and Berg 

2001

2004-666.ASM East Marana Properties 

Environmental Services

2 – AZ AA:7:522 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:964 (ASM)

Barr 2004

2004-724.ASM Riggs Road – Picacho Peak 

Road

0 Brodbeck and Touchin 

2004

2004-810.ASM 101 W. 6th Street Monitoring 0 Diehl 2004a

2004-1726.ASM Marana Town Center survey 0 Craig 2004a

2004-1747.ASM Marana Gin property at NW 

corner of Sandario & TricoMarana roads, 39.09-acre 

cultural resources survey

2 – AZ AA:12:970 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:971 (ASM)

McKee and Dart 2004

2004-1851.ASM Pascua Neighborhood 

Improvements Survey

0 Diehl 2004b

2004-1864.ASM Alameda Street Survey 0 Fahrni and Twilling 

2004

2004-1900.ASM El Paso CPS 1990 0 Wilcox 2004

2005-49.ASM CSD 4-Home Survey 0 Diehl 2004c

2005-58.ASM I-10 Prince-Ruthrauff – Prince 

Road Bridge Survey

0 Garcia 2005

2005-159.ASM U of A Marana Farm 0 DeJongh and Dart 

2005a

2005-344.ASM Picacho Yard 0 Bild 2005

2005-358.ASM Riverview Park Survey 0 Diehl 2004d

2005-446.ASM Tucson-Apache 115-kV 

Transmission Line Project

0 Goldstein 2008

2005-490.ASM Trico Cascada Project 0 Barr 2005
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-12

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2005-578.ASM Cultural Resources Survey and 

Monitoring for the KMEP Line 

Section 6/7 and 7 Anomaly 

Repair Project

0 Allan 2005

2005-584.ASM Marana 100 Survey 0 Craig 2004b

2005-617.ASM Monitoring at St Marys and 

Granada

0 Harris Environmental 

Group, Inc. 2005

2005-721.ASM Flowing Wells Lighting Survey 0 Diehl 2005a

2005-790.ASM Riverview Park Monitoring 0 Diehl 2005b

2005-829.ASM El Rio Acres B2B Survey 0 Diehl 2005c

2005-848.ASM Fairview Industrial Park Parcel 0 Jerla and Dart 2005

2005-877.ASM MUSD Transportation Facility 0 DeJongh and Dart 

2005b

2005-1056.ASM Tortolita Mountain Ranch 

Enviro Services

0 Barr 2006

2005-1061.ASM Anasazi Stone EA 0 Klimas 2005

2006-132.ASM PSI Picacho 0 Rogers 2006

2006-292.ASM Kinder Morgan Energy 

Partners Anomaly Dig Sites F/6 

and 29, Pima and Pinal 

Counties, AZ

0 Epperson 2006

2006-308.ASM Cambio Grande Survey 0 Diehl 2006

2006-507.ASM Camino del Cerro ROW 

Landscaping Survey

0 Cook 2006

2006-631.ASM 12" East Line Washout (aka. 

12" Tucson-Phoenix Washout)

0 Epperson and Self 2006

2006-781.ASM West Ina Road Parcel 101-05-

010C, 1.99-acre Cultural 

Resources Survey

0 DeJongh and Dart 2006

2006-782.ASM Red Rock TI 0 Baker and Heilman 

2007

2006-928.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project 4 – AZ AA:12:901 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:903 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:904 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:907 (ASM)

Freuden 2006

2006-938.ASM Yaqui Survey 0 Doak 2006a

2006-939.ASM Mars Survey 0 Doak 2006b

2006-999.ASM I-10, La Cholla Blvd. and 

W. Fort Lowell Road

2 – AZ AA:12:735 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:745 (ASM)

Fenicle 2007

2007-45.ASM City of Tucson 06 58 0 Tucker 2006
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-13

Table C-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Corridor Alternatives

Project Number Project Name Number of Sites Recorded 

- Site Number(s) Reference

2007-504.ASM Peppertree Ranch Lot 42 0 Stephen 2006

2007-547.ASM Old Pasqua Neighborhood 

Survey

0 Howell 2007

2007-594.ASM COT 07-33 Miracle Mile 

Property

0 Tucker 2007

2007-679.ASM COT 07-27 Speedway/Main 

Intersection

Unknown Hesse 2007

2007-823.ASM EPNG Line 2113 PIP 0 Hesse and Levstik 2008

2008-573.ASM Miracle Mile Parcel Survey 0 Howell 2008

2008-579.ASM 08-32 COT – El Camino del 

Cerro Rd Widening

0 Griset 2008

2009-787.ASM San Lucas Floodwall ASLD 0 Jones 2009

2010-375.ASM Yaqui 2 Lots Survey – Calle Sur 0 Howell 2010a

2010-376.ASM Yaqui 2 Lots Survey – Calle 

Adelanto

0 Howell 2010b

SHPO-2003-

0588

Cultural Resource Survey of 

Ina Road and the Santa Cruz 

River in Marana, Arizona

Unknown AZSITE

SHPO-2003-

0848

Orange Grove Road Expansion 

- Pima County Department of 

Transportation proposed 2.25 

mile expansion

Unknown AZSITE

SHPO-2004-

0008

CSI - Communication Service, 

Inc. T-Mobile Proposed site 

PH35202A "TEP Lattice 

Tower" Proposed

Unknown AZSITE
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-14

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ T:10:84 (ASM)/ 

Southern Pacific Railroad: 

Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy 

Spur; Sunset Route

Historic railroad Determined 

Eligible (A)

Kearns et al. 2001

AZ Z:2:40 (ASM)/

Southern Pacific Railroad 

Mainline - Southern 

Route; Sunset Route; 

Southern Pacific Mainline

Historic railroad Determined 

Eligible (A)

Wright 1992; Barz 1998; 

Smith and Wheeler 2003a 

and 2003b; Terhune and 

Garcia 2007

AZ AA:1:95 (ASM) Historic transmission line Not considered 

eligible

Moreno et al. 1996

AZ AA:2:118 (ASM)/ 

State Route 84; Casa 

Grande Highway

Historic roadway Determined 

Eligible 

(A and D)

Wright 1992; Baker and 

Webb 2001; Barnes and 

Wright 2001; Newsome 

and Berg 2001; Smith and 

Wheeler 2003a and 2003b; 

Brodbeck and Touchin 

2004; Garcia 2005; Barr 

2006; Baker and Heilman 

2007; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:6:47 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Komerska and Breternitz 

1955; Crary 1992

AZ AA:6:51 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Considered 

eligible

Roberts 1994

AZ AA:6:69 (ASM) Historic habitation Considered 

eligible

Doak 1999

AZ AA:6:91 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Touchin 2001

AZ AA:7:5 (ASM) Multicomponent – Historic 

artifact scatter and 

prehistoric sherd scatter

Not evaluated Komerska and Breternitz 

1955

AZ AA:7:6 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter; bone on 

surface

Considered 

eligible

McCarthy 1982; Doak 

1999; Baker and Webb 

2001; Kearns et al. 2001; 

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:7:17 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:24 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam sherd 

scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-15

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:7:30 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:32 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated McCarthy 1982

AZ AA:7:33 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not evaluated McCarthy 1982; Hesse and 

Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:34 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:71 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:88 (ASM)/ 

Highway Hearth Site

Hearth and flakes of 

unknown age

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:454 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:455 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:7:462 (ASM)/ 

Red Rock Station

Historic railroad complex Considered 

eligible

Crary and Macnider 1992; 

Kearns et al. 2001;

Railey and Yost 2001; Estes 

et al. 2004a

AZ AA:7:463 (ASM) Railroad tie structure of 

unknown function and age

Considered 

eligible

Crary and Macnider 1992; 

Roth 1994

AZ AA:7:464 (ASM) Protohistoric/Historic 

artifact scatter

National 

Register Listed

(D)

Crary 1992; Newsome and 

Berg 2001

AZ AA:7:465 (ASM) Historic railroad complex Not evaluated Crary 1992

AZ AA:7:492 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Mason-Kohlmeyer 1998

AZ AA:7:494 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Mason-Kohlmeyer 1998

AZ AA:7:502 (ASM) Historic wagon road with 

associated artifacts

Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:7:503 (ASM) Historic roadway Not considered 

eligible

Baker and Webb 2001; 

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:7:504 (ASM) Historic structural remains, 

part of a maintenance yard

Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:7:506 (ASM)/

El Paso Natural Gas 

Pipeline No. 2023

Historic gas pipeline Not considered 

eligible

Baker and Webb 2001; 

Hesse and Chenault 2003
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-16

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:7:510 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:511 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter with 

features

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:512 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter with 

features

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:513 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter with one 

rock feature

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:514 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 

with features

Not considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:515 (ASM) Prehistoric Archaic lithic 

scatter with features

Considered 

eligible

Hesse and Gutierrez 2004

AZ AA:7:520 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Estes et al. 2004a

AZ AA:7:522 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Barr 2004

AZ AA:7:523 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:874 (ASM)

Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:7:527 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Bassett 2002b

AZ AA:7:536 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter with one 

feature

Considered 

eligible

Doak 1999

AZ AA:8:366 (ASM) Historic transmission line Not considered 

eligible

Lindeman 1997

AZ AA:10:19 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:495 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:521 (ASM)/ 

Arizona Southern Railroad 

Company Railroad Grade; 

Industry Railroad Grade; 

Sasco Road

Historic railroad – portions 

of grade used as road

Considered 

eligible

Mason-Kohlmeyer 1998; 

Wilcox 2004

AZ AA:11:30 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Rosenberg 1984; Barr 2004
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-17

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:11:139 (ASM) Multicomponent – Historic 

artifact scatter and 

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Barr 2004

AZ AA:12:1 (ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:5 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam sherd 

scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:9 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:10 (ASM)/ 

Sunset Mesa Ruin; Basillio 

Cuevas Homestead

Prehistoric Hohokam

habitation and Historic 

Mexican-American 

homestead

Considered 

eligible

Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989; Wallace 

1995

AZ AA:12:11 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Bernard-Shaw 1990; Adams 

and Macnider 1992; Railey

and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:13 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Bernard-Shaw 1990; Adams 

and Macnider 1992; Railey 

and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:14 (ASM)/ 

Jaynes Station

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter and historic 

settlement

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:15 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter, agricultural 

terraces, and canal and 

historic artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:16 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Estes et al. 2004b; Garcia 

2005

AZ AA:12:17 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:18 (ASM)/ 

Hodges Ruin; Grand Pit; 

Gravel Pit Site

Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Considered 

eligible

Jones and Dart 2003b

AZ AA:12:19 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Adams and Macnider 1992
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-18

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:20 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:41 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:351 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:352 (ASM)

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam

habitation and historic 

artifact scatter and race 

track

Determined 

eligible

Swidler 1985; Smith and 

Wheeler 2003a and 2003b

AZ AA:12:21 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Considered 

eligible

Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989; Terzis

1996; Smith and Wheeler 

2003b

AZ AA:12:34 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:37 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:823 (ASM)

Prehistoric habitation; 

burial

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:38 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:41 (ASM)

Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:44 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:488 (ASM)/ 

GRIP Site (Grant Road 

Industrial Park)

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and roasting 

pits

Not considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:51 (ASM)/ 

Stewart Brickyard Site

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey 

and Yost 2001; Freuden 

2006; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:12:52 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:54 (ASM)/ 

Point of Mountain

Historic stage and 

freighting station

Determined 

eligible

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:61 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam sherd 

scatter

Determined 

eligible

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:85 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam village

Determined 

eligible (D)

Betancourt 1978

AZ AA:12:88 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

cremations

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:90 (ASM)/ 

Wetlands Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:91 (ASM); 

AZ AA:12:41 (ASM)/

Los Pozos

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Betancourt 1978; Hill and 

Garcia 1999
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-19

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:92 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter 

and canal

Determined 

eligible (D)

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:95 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and Historic 

artifact scatter and building 

remnants

Determined 

eligible (D)

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:99 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978; Estes et 

al. 2004b

AZ AA:12:100 (ASM)/ 

Bechtel 2

Prehistoric artifact scatter 

and roasting pits

Not evaluated Wallace 1996b

AZ AA:12:103 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Determined 

eligible

Betancourt 1978

AZ AA:12:104 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978

AZ AA:12:111 (ASM)/ 

Las Capas

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation

Determined 

eligible

Brew and Rogge 1976; 

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:113 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:130 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam roasting pits and 

hearths

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:141 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:142 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:143 (ASM)/ 

Los Morteros Locus 1

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:226 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible (D)

Craig 2004b; Terhune and 

Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:227 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:228 (ASM) Multicomponent – Historic 

artifact scatter and 

foundation and prehistoric 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-20

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:232 (ASM)/ 

Cortaro Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter 

and pit features

Determined 

eligible (D)

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:252 (ASM)/ 

Rillito Loop Site

Multicomponent –

prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

cemetary

Determined 

eligible (D)

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey 

and Yost 2001; Freuden 

2006; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:12:256 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Railey and Yost 2001; 

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:257 (ASM) Historic building remnants Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:258 (ASM)/ 

Rillito Townsite

Historic Rillito Train State 

and ticketing depot

Considered 

eligible 

(A and D)

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey 

and Yost 2001; Terhune 

and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:262 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and hearth

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:285 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:774 (ASM)/ 

Dairy Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation and 

historic artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Madsen et al. 1993; Moses 

2003a; Brack 2004

AZ AA:12:325 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:326 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:350 (ASM) Historic habitation Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:369 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Urban 1982b

AZ AA:12:370 (ASM)/ 

Antonio Alvarez 

Homestead

Historic structures Determined 

eligible

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey 

and Yost 2001; Freuden

2006; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:12:372 (ASM) Historic structure and 

depression

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:373 (ASM) Historic structures Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:374 (ASM) Historic structures Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:375 (ASM) Historic cemetery Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:382 (ASM)/ 

Adonis site

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Urban 1982c; Kearns et al. 

2001; Railey and Yost 2001; 

Freuden 2006; Terhune and 

Garcia 2007
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-21

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:455 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:459 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:486 (ASM)/ 

Cortaro Fan Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter 

and features

Determined 

eligible (D)

Railey and Yost 2001; 

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:487 (ASM) Prehistoric ash stain Not considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:503 (ASM)/ 

Costello-King Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation

Determined 

eligible

Gregonis 1986; Railey and 

Yost 2001; Smith and 

Wheeler 2003b

AZ AA:12:649 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:672 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:682 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:683 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:873 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:896 (ASM)

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Railey and Yost 2001; 

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:685 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam sherd 

scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Twilling and Hesse 2003; 

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:686 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Hesse 2001

AZ AA:12:687 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:688 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Bontrager 1988a

AZ AA:12:689 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989

AZ AA:12:690 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989; Terzis 1996

AZ AA:12:691 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989; Jones 1999

AZ AA:12:692 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Ciolek-Torrello and 

Homburg 1989

AZ AA:12:735 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Fenicle 2007
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-22

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:736 (ASM)/ 

Valley Farms Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter 

and historic artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Bernard-Shaw 1990; Kearns 

et al. 2001; Railey and Yost 

2001; DeJongh and Thurtle 

2003; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:12:739 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Albright 1991

AZ AA:12:741 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter and roasting 

pit

Determined 

eligible (D)

Baker and Webb 2001; 

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey 

and Yost 2001; Terhune 

and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:742 (ASM)/ 

Marana Siding

Historic railroad siding Not considered 

eligible

Kearns et al. 2001; Railey

and Yost 2001; Freuden 

2006; Terhune and Garcia 

2007

AZ AA:12:745 (ASM)/ 

Square Hearth Site

Prehistoric Archaic 

habitation

Determined 

eligible (D)

Fenicle 2007

AZ AA:12:746 (ASM)/ 

Santa Cruz Bend; 

Vacas Muertas

Prehistoric Archaic 

habitation

Determined

eligible (D)

Hill and Garcia 1999

AZ AA:12:788 (ASM)/ 

Rillito Fan Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation

Determined 

eligible (D)

Wallace 1995

AZ AA:12:789 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam canal Determined 

eligible (D)

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:790 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam canal Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:798 (ASM)/ 

Slip-up Site

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Slawson 1994

AZ AA:12:801 (ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Not evaluated Wallace 1996a

AZ AA:12:820 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Stephen 1997

AZ AA:12:830 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Larkin et al. 1998

AZ AA:12:836 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and 

prehistoric/historic cairns

Considered 

eligible

Fratt 1998
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-23

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:857 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Doak 1999

AZ AA:12:858 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Doak 1999; Kearns et al. 

2001; Railey and Yost 2001; 

Freuden 2006

AZ AA:12:859 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Doak 1999; Kearns et al. 

2001; Railey and Yost 2001; 

Smith and Wheeler 2003b

AZ AA:12:862 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter Not considered 

eligible

Sterner 2001

AZ AA:12:870 (ASM);

AZ AA:12:895 (ASM)/ 

Cortaro Farms Canal

Historic canal Determined 

eligible (A)

Baker and Webb 2001; 

Barnes and Wright 2001

AZ AA:12:871 (ASM) Historic railroad spur Considered 

eligible

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:872 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam sherd 

scatter

Considered 

eligible

Railey and Yost 2001

AZ AA:12:875 (ASM);

AZ AA:7:505 (ASM)/

El Paso Natural Gas 

Pipeline No. 1007

Historic natural gas 

pipeline (El Paso No. 1007)

Determined 

eligible 

(C and D)

Baker and Webb 2001; 

Hesse and Chenault 2003; 

Allan 2005; Barr 2006

AZ AA:12:876 (ASM)/ 

Producers Cotton Oil 

Company Marana Gin 

Office and Warehouse

Historic buildings Considered 

eligible

Fish et al. 1992; Madsen et 

al. 1993; Jones 2001a

AZ AA:12:877 (ASM) Prehistoric habitation Considered 

eligible (D)

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:897 (ASM) Historic canals and road 

bed

Determined 

eligible

(A and C)

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:898 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible (D)

Terhune and Garcia 2007

AZ AA:12:900 (ASM)/ 

Cortaro

Historic Southern Pacific 

railroad station

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ AA:12:901 (ASM) Historic canal Considered 

eligible

Freuden 2006

AZ AA:12:902 (ASM) Historic canal Considered 

eligible

AZSITE
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-24

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ AA:12:903 (ASM)/

El Camino de Manana

Historic roadway Considered 

eligible

Freuden 2006

AZ AA:12:904 (ASM) Historic roadway Not considered 

eligible

Freuden 2006

AZ AA:12:905 (ASM)/ 

Massingale Road

Historic roadway Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:907 (ASM)/ 

Pima Farms Road

Historic roadway Considered 

eligible

Freuden 2006

AZ AA:12:911 (ASM) Prehistoric canal Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ AA:12:912 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

Apache/O’odham artifact 

scatter

Considered 

eligible

McKee and Dart 2002b

AZ AA:12:953 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric artifact scatter 

and historic artifact scatter

Considered 

eligible

Estes 2004a

AZ AA:12:964 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter

Not considered 

eligible

Barr 2004

AZ AA:12:970 (ASM)/ 

Anderson Clayton 

Marana Gin

Historic cotton gin Considered 

eligible

McKee and Dart 2004

AZ AA:12:971 (ASM) Historic habitation Not considered 

eligible

McKee and Dart 2004

AZ BB:5:123 (ASM)/ 

Oracle-Tucson 

Transmission Line

Historic transmission line 

remnants

Not considered 

eligible

Brown and Rohman 1994; 

Kearns et al. 2001; Smith 

and Wheeler 2003b

AZ BB:9:78 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ BB:9:222 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ BB:13:23 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Diehl 2002b

AZ BB:13:85 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

habitation

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978

AZ BB:13:86 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978; Diehl 

2004d

AZ BB:13:87 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

hearth

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-25

Table C-2. Cultural Resource Sites Recorded within the Corridor Alternatives

Site Number/

Name

Description NRHP Eligibility Reference

AZ BB:13:88 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam and 

historic O’odham artifact 

scatter

Not evaluated Betancourt 1978

AZ BB:13:110 (ASM)/ 

St. Mary's Dump

Historic artifact scatter Determined 

eligible

Betancourt 1978; Dart 

1983

AZ BB:13:156 (ASM)/ 

Court Street Burials; Court 

Street Cemetery; Tucson 

Miscellaneous Sites #10

Historic cemetery Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ BB:13:157 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter and historic 

artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Dart 1983

AZ BB:13:158 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatter 

and historic artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Dart 1983

AZ BB:13:159 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter and historic 

O’odham artifact scatter

Determined 

eligible

Dart 1983

AZ BB:13:319 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam 

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Dart 1985

AZ BB:13:320 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam

artifact scatter

Not evaluated Dart 1985

AZ BB:13:425 (ASM)/

Stone Pipe Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Archaic and 

Hohokam habitation

Determined 

eligible

Hill and Garcia 1999

AZ BB:13:468 (ASM)/ 

Canal Site

Multicomponent –

Prehistoric Hohokam canals 

and features and a historic 

canal and features

Determined 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ BB:13:514 (ASM) Historic trash dump Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ BB:13:623 (ASM)/ 

Historic Block 54

Historic habitation 

area/neighborhood block

Not evaluated AZSITE

AZ BB:13:640 (ASM) Prehistoric Hohokam canal Considered 

eligible

AZSITE

AZ BB:13:668 (ASM) Multicomponent –

Prehistoric habitation and 

historic habitation

Not evaluated AZSITE
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-26

Bibliography 

Adams, Kim, and Barbara S. Macnider

1992 An Archaeological Assessment for the Rillito Loop, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, Tucson to 

Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Adams, Rex K., Lisa W. Huckell, and Susan Brew

1980 Letter report, Archaeological Survey of the Proposed East Santa Cruz and Southeast 

Interceptor Routes in Tucson, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 

Tucson.

Aguila, Lourdes

1998 A Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Cellular One Communication Facility, Marana, 

Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Albright, Eric H.

1991 Survey of Ted Walker Regional Park and Proposed Equestrian Staging Area. Statistical 

Research Inc., Tucson. 

Allan, James M.

2005 Final Cultural Resource Survey and Monitoring Report KMEP Line Section 6/7 and 7 

Anamoly Repair Project Pinal County, Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., Tucson.

Archer, Gavin, and Kevin Wellman

1999 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Cortaro Road Design Concept Report, 

Marana, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Baker, Jeffrey L., and Jill Heilman

2007 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Red Rock TI. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.

Baker, Jeffrey L., and Dorothy L. Webb

2001 An Archaeological Survey of Six Reroutes: Addendum 2 to an Archaeological Survey of 

Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Inc., Farmington.

Baker, Kathleen A., and Timothy M. Kearns

2001 An Archaeological Survey of Three Op Amp Facilities: Addendum 4 of An Archaeological 

Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western 

Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Farmington.

Barnes, Benjamin N., and Thomas E. Wright

2001 A Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 29.4 Miles of Interstate 10 Right-of-Way 

Between Mileposts 231.8-240.5 and Mileposts 260.5-281.2 in the Vicinity of Marana and 

Tucson, Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona. Report No. 1999:036. Archaeological Research 

Services, Inc., Tempe.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-27

Barr, David M. R.

2004 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 750 Acres West of the Tortolita Mountains, Town 

of Marana, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

2005 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Trico Cascada Project, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

2006 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Tortolita TI, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Barz, David D.

1998 A Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 40 Miles of Interstate 10 Right-of-Way 

Between Picacho and the Casa Blanca Road Interchange, Northwestern Pinal County, 

Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

Bassett, Everett J.

2002a Cultural Resources Technical Report: Access Road for the Desert Energy Project. 

Transcon Environmental, Mesa.

2002b Cultural Resources Inventory for the Desert Energy Power Plant Project. Transcon 

Environmental, Mesa.

Bauer, Sharon, and A.E. (Gene) Rogge

2000 Cultural Resource Survey for the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Pipeline Anomaly Digs 

Project, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. URS Dames & Moore, Phoenix.

Bernard-Shaw, Mary

1990 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed ADOT I-10 Corridor Improvements From Ruthrauff

to Tangerine Roads, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Betancourt, Julio

1978 Cultural Resources within the Proposed Santa Cruz Riverpark Archaeological District. 

ASM Archaeological Series 125. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Bild, David A.

2005 A Cultural Resources Survey of 13.76 Acres of Material Source #5058 Picacho Yard, 

Southeast of Eloy, Pinal County, Arizona. Logan Simpson Design Inc., Tempe.

Bontrager, Daniel R.

1988a A Cultural Resources Evaluation of a Proposed Highway Interchange Improvement 

Project at the Interstate 10 – Ina Road Interchange Near Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-28

1988b A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Extension of Tangerine Road West of 

Interstate 10 near Rillito in North-Central Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Research 

Services, Inc., Tempe.

Brack, Michael L. 

2001a A Cultural Resources Survey of Cortaro Farms Road between US Interstate 10 and 

Thornydale Road, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2001b A Cultural Resources Assessment of 3401 North Freeway, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

Desert Archaeology, Inc.,Tucson.

2004 A Cultural Resources Assessment of Cortaro Farms Road Between Interstate 10 and 

Stargrass Drive, Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Brew, Susan A.

1980 Archaeological Clearance of Denny Dunn Neighborhood Park, Project No. L-80-04. 

Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Brew, Susan, and Gene Rogge

1976 Letter report, Canada del Oro Sewer-Brown & Caldwell. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Brodbeck, Mark, and Jewel Touchin

2004 A Cultural Resources Survey of Six Traffic Interchanges along the Interstate 10 Corridor 

Between Queen Creek Road and Picacho Peak Road, Maricopa and Pinal Counties, 

Arizona. HDR Engineering, Inc., Phoenix.

Brown, Gary, and Marian Rohman

1994 Cultural Resource Inventory for Western Area Power Administration on the OracleTucson 115 kV Transmission Line, Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona. Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Farmington.

Castalia, Patricia 

1984 Letter report, An Archaeological Clearance Survey of Power Line Right-of-Way for Trico 

Electric Cooperative Near Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, 

Tucson.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard, and Jeffrey A. Homburg

1989 Cultural Resources Surveys and Overviews of the Rillito River Drainage Area, Pima 

County, Arizona. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Cook, Patricia

2001 An Archaeological Survey for the Northwest Quadrant Water Main Replacement Project, 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 

2006 Cultural Resources Survey along West Camino del Cerro, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-29

Craig, Douglas B.

2004a Cultural Resources Survey of 40.5 Acres Within the Marana Town Center, Marana, Pima 

County, Arizona. Northland Research, Inc., Tucson.

2004b A Cultural Resources Survey of 100 Acres Located near the Intersection of El Camino de 

Manana and Linda Vista Boulevard, Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Northland Research, 

Inc., Tempe. 

Crary, Joseph S.

1992 Archaeological Survey of the Picacho to Toltec and GRIC to Phoenix Segments of the 

Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. Archaeological 

Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Curtis, Ross S.

1988 Cultural Resources Survey of a One-Eighth Acre Parcel in the Vicinity of Interstate 10 and 

Grant Road in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., 

Tempe.

Czaplicki, John

1980 Letter report, TRICO Surveys, project no. P-80-01(2). Arizona State Museum Tucson.

1983 An Intensive Archaeological Survey in the Lower Santa Cruz River Basin, Picacho 

Reservoir to Rillito, Arizona, A Class III Survey of the Tucson Aqueduct Phase A Corridor, 

Central Arizona Project. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix.

Dart, Allen

1983 Letter report, Archaeological and Historic Site Survey for Proposed Interstate 10 – State 

Route 210 Interchange Area, West of Granada Avenue: The Aviation Corridor Project in 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1985 An Archaeological Survey of the El Rio-Star Pass Waterline Tucson, Arizona. Technical 

Report No. 85-7. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

DeJongh, Jennifer, and Allen Dart

2005a Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of 205.83 Acres of the University of Arizona 

Marana Farm Property at Sanders Road and Trico-Marana Road, Marana, Arizona. Old 

Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2005b Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of 15.0 Acres for Proposed School District 

Transportation Facility Southeast of the Intersection of Avra Valley Road and Interstate 

10 in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2006 Cultural Resources Survey of 1.99 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Ina Road and Camino 

de Oeste in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-30

DeJongh, Jennifer, and Mary Charlotte Thurtle

2003 An Archaeological Resources Assessment of an 80-Acre Parcel and Adjacent 1.48-Acres 

for an Offsite Sewer Line along the I-10 Frontage Road, Marana, Pima County, Arizona. 

Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Diehl, Allison Cohen

1998a Letter report, Archaeological Survey of Miracle Manor, Tucson, Arizona. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1998b Letter report no. 98-177, Archaeological Survey of Rio Nuevo Center Parcel, Tucson, 

Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1998c Letter report no. 98-176, Archaeological Survey of Rio Nuevo Center Parcel, Tucson, 

Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999a Letter report, An Archaeological Survey of Prince Road between Interstate 10 and 1st

Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999b Letter report, An Archaeological Survey of Barrio Anita, Tucson, Arizona. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999c Letter report, Archaeological Survey for the University Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Cast Iron 

Main Rehabilitation Project, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999d Cultural Resources Survey of a Parcel Between Meyer and Court Avenues at Sixth Street, 

Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Moratorium Streets Cast Iron Main Rehabilitation 

Project, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 00-134. Desert Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson.

2001 Cultural Resources Survey for Traffic Signals on west Grant Road, Tucson, Arizona. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2002a Results of Archaeological Monitoring of an Electrical Installation on Main Avenue 

Between 6th and Washington Streets, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson.

2002b Archaeological Monitoring in the Vicinity of AZ BB:13:23 (ASM) Tucson, Pima County, 

Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2002c Archaeological Monitoring near the Intersection of 6th and Main Streets, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003a Cultural Resources Survey of a Parcel at 629 West Mabel Street, Tucson, Pima County, 

Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-31

2003b Cultural Resources Survey of a Property at Grand Road and Calle Central, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003c Cultural Resources Survey of Thornydale Road between Ina and Orange Grove Roads, 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003d Cultural Resources Survey Along Stone Avenue Between 1st and 6th Streets, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003e Cultural Resources Survey for the Corrosion Prevention Project, Tucson, Pima County, 

Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2004a Archaeological Monitoring of a Water Line Installation at 101 West 6th Street, Tucson, 

Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2004b Cultural Resources Survey at the Intersection of Calle Sur and Calle Central, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2004c Cultural Resource Survey of Four Parcels in the Old Pascua Neighborhood, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2004d Cultural Resources Survey at Riverview Park, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2005a Cultural Resources Survey for a Lighting Project in the Vicinity of Fort Lowell and Flowing 

Wells Roads, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2005b Results of Archaeological Monitoring at Riverview Park in the Vicinity of AZ BB:13:85 

(ASM), Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2005c Cultural Resources Survey and Results of Archaeological Monitoring for the El Rio Acres 

Back to Basics Project, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2006 Cultural Resources Survey Along Grande Avenue between Speedway Boulevard and St. 

Mary’s Road, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Doak, David P.

1991 Cultural Resource Survey for a Proposed Underground Electric Line Near the Adonis 

Mobile Home Community Near Marana, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental 

Consultants, Tucson. 

1999 Archaeological Survey of the Vail Work Around a Portion of a Proposed Fiber Optic Line, 

Phoenix to the Arizona-New Mexico State Line (Addendum). Report No. 99-72. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

2004 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of a 52-acre Parcel within the Pines Golf Club, 

Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-32

2006a A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of a Lot at 845 West Calle Ventura, Tucson, Arizona. 

Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

2006b A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of a 4.77-Acre Parcel at 4400 West Mars Street, 

Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Doelle, William H.

1991 Letter report no. 91-145, No title. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Duff, Andrew

1993 Field Inspection of Interstate 10 Bridge Locations at Rillito Creek and Canada del Oro, 

North of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

1999 An Archaeological Survey of 71.5 Acres on the Southwest Corner of Cortaro Road and 

Interstate 10, Marana, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Effland, Richard, and Margerie Green

1985 Cultural Resource Assessment: The Western Area Power Administration Saguaro to 

Tucson 115 kV Transmission Line. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Epperson, Jennifer

2006 Archaeological Summary Report for Two Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Anomaly Dig 

Sites, Pima and Pinal Counties, Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., Tucson.

Epperson, Jennifer, and Trevor Self

2006 Class I Inventory and Non-Site Monitoring, SFPP, LP, 12” East Line Washout, Pinal 

County, Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., Tucson.

Eppley, Lisa G.

1991a Letter report, Glenn – Fairview Main Replacement. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1991b Letter report, Fairview Avenue – Grant Road to 15th Avenue Road Widening. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1993 Letter report, Plane Avenue Main Replacement Survey. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Estes, Allen, Aimee Arigoni, Jenni Price, Kyle Kearney, James Allan, and William Self

2004a Final Cultural Resources Survey and Monitoring Report, KMEP 12 Anomaly Digs, Line 

Section 53/54, Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties, Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., 

Tucson.

Estes, Allen, James Allan, Jenni Price, Kyle Kearney, and William Self

2004b Final report: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Survey, KMEP Phase II Pipeline 

Replacement Project and KMEP Line Section 53/54 Anomaly 1 Repair, Pima County, 

Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-33

Fahrni, Grant, and Shannon Twilling

2004 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey in Support of a Fiber Optic Installation in Downtown 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Harris Environmental Group, Inc., Tucson.

Fenicle, Diane

2007 A Cultural Resources Survey of the La Cholla Boulevard and West Fort Lowell Road 

Realignment, a Part of the I-10 Improvements Project, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and John Madsen (editors)

1992 The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers of the 

University of Arizona 56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Fratt, Lee

1998 An Archaeological Assessment Survey of Two Parcels Totaling 5 Acres Near Ina and 

Oldfather Roads in the Town of Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Archaeological 

and Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Fratt, Lee, and John Hayes

2000 An Archaeological Assessment Survey of a 2.57 Acre Parcel at Costco Place in Marana, 

Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Archaeological and Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Fratt, Lee, and Trisha Rude

1999 Archaeological Assessment Surveys of Existing Underground Gas Pipeline Right-of-Ways 

Located on Arizona State Trust Land in Pinal and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Tierra 

Archaeological and Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Freeman, Andrea K. L.

1994a Letter report, Archaeological Survey along Interstate-10, South of Ina Road. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1994b Letter report, Archaeological Survey of the Continental Ranch, Parcel 68 Golf Academy 

Project. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1994c Letter report, Archaeological Survey of the Santa Cruz River Bikepath from Speedway 

Boulevard to Mission Lane, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1996 Letter report, Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Installation of Protective Jetties 

along the Santa Cruz River, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Freuden, Kathleen A.

2006 Ancillary Survey Report for Link Three Arizona: Addendum 9 to an Archaeological Survey 

of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Inc., Farmington.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-34

Fuller, Megan S.

2001 A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 15.5-Mile Long Tucson Electric Power Transmission 

Line Corridor Running Northwest From Marana to Red Rock, Pima and Pinal Counties, 

Arizona. Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc., Phoenix.

Garcia, Daniel

2005 A Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Right-of-Way at the Interstate 10 Prince Road 

Traffic Interchange, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.

Goetze, Christine E.

1993 Letter report, Archaeological Surveys at Four 1993 Flood Repair Locations. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Goldstein, Beau J.

2008 Class III Cultural Resources Survey Report Tucson-Apache 115-kV Transmission Line 

Project Pima and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Transcon Environmental, Mesa.

Grady, Mark

1973 An Archaeological Survey of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct. Arizona State Museum Archaeology 

Series 23. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Gregonis, Linda

1986 Letter report, Halbert Industrial Park Survey. 

Grenda, Donn

1991 Orange Grove Extension Survey: Report of Cultural Resources Survey, W.O. 4BBRGD, 

Proposed Extension of Orange Grove Road From I-10 West to Silverbell Road. Statistical 

Research Inc., Tucson. 

Griset, Suzanne

2008 Archaeological Records Search and Survey for West El Camino del Cerro Road Widening, 

Tucson, Arizona/COT 08-32, SWCA Project No. 14838. SWCA Environmental Consultants, 

Tucson.

Hall, Susan

1999 Archaeological Monitoring of the Barrio Anita Neighborhood Improvements Project, 

Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2001 An Archaeological Survey of the Silverbell Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites, 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Hammack, Nancy S.

1983 Cultural Resource Assessment, Tucson-Apache 115 kV Transmission Line. Complete 

Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-35

Harris Environmental Group, Inc.

2005 Archaeological Monitoring in Support of Fiber Optic Installation at 465 North Granada 

Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. Harris Environmental Group, Inc., Tucson.

Harry, Karen G.

1991 Letter report to Linda Mayro dated 9/4/91 - Results of Cultural Resource Survey: Lower 

Santa Cruz River Flood Control Levee. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. 

Hayes, John, and Karin Olsson

2001 A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of a 15.19 Acre Parcel South of Massingale Road 

in North Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Archaeological and Environmental 

Consultants, Tucson.

Hesse, India S.

2007 An Archaeological Survey of the West Speedway Boulevard and North Main Avenue 

Intersection Right-of-Way Acquisition, COT Project 07-27, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Hesse, Jerome S.

2001 An Archaeological Survey along Tangerine Road West of Interstate 10 in the Town of 

Marana, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

2003 Cultural Resources Survey along Tangerine Road East of Interstate 10: Addendum to a 

Cultural Resource Survey along an Approximately 5.8-mile Long Segment of Tangerine 

Road in Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Hesse, Jerome S., and Gavin H. Archer

2000 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Marana Circuits 15 & 16 Rebuild and the Avra Valley 

Tie Line, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Hesse, Jerome S., and Mark L. Chenault

2003 A Cultural Resources Survey of Eighteen Construction Sites along EPNG Line 1007 in 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona (Work Request No. PWE-AMM-044a). Report No. 03-174. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Hesse, Jerome S., and Anastacia E. Gutierrez

2004 A Cultural Resources Inventory of the EPNG Lines 1007, 1008, and 1015 Across State 

Land Portions within El Paso Corporation’s 2003 Tucson Pipeline Integrity Project, Pima 

and Pinal Counties, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Hesse, Jerome S., and Jennifer Levstik

2008 An Archaeological Survey for the EPNG Line 2113 Year 2008 Pipeline Integrity Program, 

Pinal County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-36

Heuett, Mary Lou 

1989 A Class III Archaeological Survey of a Transmission Line Right-of-Way North of Tangerine 

Road, Marana, Arizona. Cultural & Environmental Systems, Inc., Tucson.

Hill, Matthew E. Jr., and Daniel Garcia

1999 Cultural Resources Inventory Report and Discovery/Monitoring Plan for Phase I of the 

Tucson Freeway Management System along Portions of Interstate 10, 19 and B-19 Pima 

County, Arizona. Dames & Moore, Phoenix.

Howell, Joseph

2007 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 450 Linear Feet along North Calle 

Central in the Old Pascua Neighborhood, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of 

Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

2008 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of about 6.23 Acres North of West Miracle Mile, in 

the City of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

2010a A Class III Cultural Resources Survey on West Calle Sur, in Barrio Adelanto, Tucson, Pima 

County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

2010b A Class III Cultural Resource Survey on West Calle Adelanto, in Barrio Adelanto, Tucson, 

Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B.

1989 A Phase I Evaluation of the West Speedway Boulevard Silverbell Road-Santa Cruz River, 

Improvement Project, Pima County, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Huckell, Lisa W., and Susan A. Brew

1980 Letter report, Oshrin Interceptor Survey, project no. P-80-13(1&2). Arizona State 

Museum, Tucson.

Jerla, Christine A., and Allen Dart

2005 Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of 9.10 Acres for Fairview Industrial Park Parcel 

107-07-011B along Fairview Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, 

Tucson.

Jones, Jeffrey T.

1997 Letter report, An Archaeological Survey of Bore Hole Locations and Access Roads in 

Sections 26 and 35, Township 10 South, Range 10 East, Pinal County, Arizona. Old 

Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

1999 Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of 13.97 Acres East of Camino De La Tierra and 

South of the Sunset Road Alignment in Pima County, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology 

Center, Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-37

2000a Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of an Estimated 17.5 Miles of Sewerline 

Connection Corridors in Marana, Arizona (Pima County W.O. HYX-552). Old Pueblo 

Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2000b Letter report, An Archaeological Test Excavation for the Proposed Demoss Petrie 

Electrical Substation Turbine Foundation at 2501 North Flowing Wells Road, Tucson, 

Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2001a Letter report, A History of Two Adobe Structures at Site AZ AA:12:876 (ASM), the 

Producers Cotton Oil Company Marana Gin in Marana, Arizona (Pima County W. O. HYX552). Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2001b Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Communication Tower Site North 

of Cortaro Road and West of Joplin Lane in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology 

Center, Tucson.

2009 Class III Cultural Resource Survey of a 4.27-m-wide-by-1,205-m-long Right-or-Way on 

Land Managed by the Arizona State Land Department in Marana, Pima County, Arizona. 

Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Jones, Jeffrey T., and Allen Dart

2002 Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of 282 Acres of Private Property in Sections 4, 

5, 8, and 9, T10S, R10E, near Red Rock in Pinal County, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology 

Center, Tucson.

2003a Cultural Resources Survey of 9.15 Acres West of River Road and South of Orange Grove 

Roads in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2003b Cultural Resources Survey of 1.89 Acres at 2425 W. Wave Hill Court in Pima County, 

Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

Kahdahl, Eric J., and Allen Dart

2001 Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of a 2.25-mile-long Corridor along Both Sides of 

Orange Grove Road Between Thornydale Road and Corona Road in Marana, Pima 

County, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

Kearns, Thomas M., Thomas J. Lennon, Joshua G. Jones, and Steven F. Mehls

2001 An Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and 

California. Western Cultural Resources Management, Inc., Farmington.

Klimas, Thomas M.

2005 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 1.32 Acres for the Anasazi Stone Company Near 

Rillito, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-38

Klucas, Eric Eugene

2002 An Archaeological Survey of 3.9 Acres at the Interstate 10-Sandario Road Interchange. 

Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Knoblock, Keith, and Grant Fahrni

2003 A Class III Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Extension of Pegler Wash Park at the 

Northwest Corner of Camino De La Tierra and River Road, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

Harris Environmental Group, Inc., Tucson.

Komerska, Robert, and David Breternitz

1955 Archaeological Survey for Engineering Management, Inc., Yuma & Eastward for 

Southern Pacific Pipeline-Weekly Reports. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 

Tucson.

Larkin, Robert A., John A Giacobbe, and Charles Ramsey

1998 A Cultural Resource Pedestrian Survey for the Arizona Department of Transportation of 

Eight Locations in the Tucson District along I-10 at Mileposts 185, 252, 262, and 268, and 

along I-19 at Mileposts 46, 43, 39, and 7, Pinal, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. 

Stantech Consulting, Inc., Phoenix.

Lincoln, Thomas R.

1984 Archaeological Survey of Seismic Drill Holes along Reaches 2 and 3 of the Tucson 

Aqueduct. Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Projects Office, Phoenix.

1985 Archaeological Survey of the Tucson Field Office. Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona 

Projects Office, Phoenix.

Lindeman, Mike

1996 Letter report, Archaeological Monitoring at Sixteen Locations in the City of Tucson. 

Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1997 An Archaeological Survey of the Saguaro-Oracle and Coolidge-Oracle 115 kV 

Transmission Lines. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Lindeman, Mike, Catherine Gilman, and Andrea Freeman

1996 Archaeological Investigations for the Roser to Ina Reclaimed Transmission Line Project, 

Pima County, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Lite, Jeremy A., and Teresa L. Cadiente

1997 A Cultural Resources Survey of 15.8 Miles of Interstate-10 Right-of-Way Between Picacho 

and Red Rock (Mileposts 126 to 231.8), Pinal County, Arizona. Archaeological Research 

Services, Inc., Tempe.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-39

Lyon, Jerry, and Annick Lascaux

2002 An Archaeological Survey of 105 Acres for the Proposed Expansion of Arizona Portland 

Cement Company, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 

Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan

1990 Letter report, Archaeological Survey of Community Center Reclaimed Water Main 

Alignment. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1991 Letter report, Archaeological Survey of Recharge Monitor Well Locations. Desert 

Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Macnider, Barbara

1988 An Archaeological Survey of the APS 12 kV Distribution Line near Picacho Peak, Pinal 

County, Arizona. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Madsen, John H.

1983 Letter report, Southern Pacific Pipe Line Inc. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Madsen, John H., Paul R. Fish, and Suzanne K. Fish (editors)

1993 The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Directions and Background Studies. Arizona 

State Museum Archaeological Series 182. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Maldonado, Ronald P.

1988 An Archaeological Survey of 3.0 Miles of Right-of-Way for a Proposed Powerline near 

Tangerine Road. Cultural & Environmental Systems, Tucson.

Mason-Kohlmeyer, Lea

1998 Red Rock Survey. Pima Community College, Tucson.

Mayro, Linda

1987a Orange Grove/I-10/SPRR Flood Control Survey, FC-87-41 W.O. 4FRCDW. Institute for 

American Research, Tucson.

1987b Santa Cruz River Improvement District W.O. 4BSCSC. Institute for American Research, 

Tucson.

1987c Letter report, Santa Cruz River: St. Mary’s to Speedway, Speedway to Grant, Grant to 

Fort Lowell, Institute for American Research, Tucson.

1987d Letter report, Santa Cruz Improvement District: Ina Road to Canada Del Oro, W.O. 

4BSCSC. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

McCarthy, Carol Heathington

1982 An Archaeological Sample Survey of the Middle Santa Cruz River Basin. ASM 

Archaeological Series No. 148. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-40

McKee, Brian R., and Allen Dart

2002a Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of a 3.4-Mile-Long by 66-Foot-Wide Corridor for 

the Town of Marana’s Proposed Santa Cruz River Trail Phase II Paved Path West of the 

Santa Cruz River in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2002b Letter report, Cultural Resources Survey of Corridors Totaling 3.70 Miles in Length for 

the Town of Marana’s Proposed Santa Cruz River Trail Phase I and II Dirt Paths West of 

the Santa Cruz River in Marana, Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

2004 Cultural Resources Survey of 39.09-acre Marana Interchange Private Property at 

Northwest Corner of Sandario and Trico-Marana Roads in Marana, Pima County, 

Arizona. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

Montero, Laurene G.

1992 Letter report to Bob Gasser at SHPO. Arizona State Parks, Phoenix.

Moreno, Jerryll L., Ruth Van Dyke, Dawn S. Snell, Janet Griffitts, Amenia C. Wiggins, and Gary M. 

Brown

1996 An Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory of the Western Area Power Administration 

Maricopa-Saguaro 115-kV Transmission Line, Pinal County, Arizona. Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Inc., Boulder.

Moses, James

2003a A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 120 Acres South of 40 Acres at Joplin Road and 

Interstate 10 in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

2003b A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 7,994 Linear Feet along Sagebrush Road and 

Wentz Road in Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Myers, Laural, and Mark Slaughter

1994 A Cultural Resource Survey along Cortaro Farms Road for a Proposed Wastewater Pump 

Station and Force Main, Pima County. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Neves, Jenna

2001 A Cultural Resource Survey for the ARCO Farms to Carpenter Ranch Overhead Power Line 

Conversion, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Newsome, Daniel K., and Adam M. Berg

2001 Addendum D: The GRIC Alternative B Reroute: A Cultural Resources Survey of a 

Supplemental Reroute to the Arizona Segment of the El Paso to Los Angeles Fiber Optic 

Cable Project. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Flagstaff. 

Noll, Elizabeth, and Laural Myers

1995 A Cultural Resource Survey for an Alternative Site for a Proposed Wastewater Pump 

Station, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-41 

O’Brien, Patrick M., J. Simon Bruder, David A. Gregory, A.E. (Gene) Rogge, and Deborah A. Hull

1987 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the U.S. Telecom Fiber Optic Cable Project from 

San Mateo, California to Socorro, Texas. The Arizona Segment. Dames & Moore, 

Phoenix.

Petersen, Eric

2004 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Drain Line for the Lattamore Well Lot 

East of River Road, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 

Tucson.

Punzmann, Walter R.

2000 Cultural Resource Survey to Upgrade El Paso Natural Gas Company Facilities Servicing 

the Saguaro Power Plant, Near Red Rock, Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona. 

Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

Quillian, Patricia

1988 Archaeological Investigations along the Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage Central 

Main Canal. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff.

Railey, Jim A., and Stephen W. Yost (editors)

2001 Cultural Resources Survey of the 360Networks Fiber Optics Line From Mesa, Arizona to El 

Paso, Texas. TRC Project No. 29058. TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.

Ramos, Laura, A.E. (Gene) Rogge, and David E. Doyel

2001a Kinder Morgan Anomaly Digs: An Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Pipeline 

Repairs at Stopples Between El Paso, Texas and Tucson, Arizona. URS Corporation, 

Phoenix.

2001b Kinder Morgan Anomaly Digs: An Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Pipeline 

Repairs Between Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. URS Corporation, Phoenix.

Rieder, Morgan

1995 A Survey of 24 Proposed Geotechnical Testing Sites on the Santa Cruz River, Pima 

County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Rieder, Morgan, and Laural Myers

1996 A Cultural Resource Survey along Thornydale Road for Proposed Road Improvements 

between Orange Grove and Ina Roads, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental 

Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Roberts, Heidi

1994 A Cultural Resources Survey of 70 Acres for the Arizona State Land Department 

Environmental Restoration Project Eloy Airfield, Pinal County, Arizona. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-42

Rogers, Justin

2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of 74 Acres for PSI Near Interstate 10 and State Route 87, 

Southeast of Eloy, Pinal County, Arizona. Logan Simpson Design Inc., Tempe.

Rosenberg, Bettina H.

1984 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Naviska Rest Area Test Wells, Pianl and Pima 

Counties, Arizona. ADOT Project I-10-4(73). Arizona Department of Transportation, 

Phoenix.

Rosenzweig, M.

1996 Archaeological Survey along Five Southern Pacific Railroad Segments in Maricopa, Pinal, 

Pima, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Ecology & Environment, Inc., Lancaster.

Roth, Barbara

1994 An Archaeological Survey of 350 Acres Near Interstate 10 and Tangerine Road, Marana, 

Arizona. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson. 

Rozen, Kenneth

1979 The Archaeological Survey of the Northern Tucson 138 kV Transmission Line System: The 

Northern Tucson Basin and Lower Santa Cruz Valley, Arizona. Arizona State Museum 

Archaeological Series No. 132. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1999 Letter report, Parsons Fenceline, Corral, project no. 05-104050. Arizona State Land 

Department, Phoenix.

Self, William

2000 Letter Report to Ms. Kim Adkins, Kinder Morgan, dated October 5, 2000. William Self 

Associates, Inc., Tucson.

2001 Letter Report to Connie Stone, BLM Phoenix Field Office, dated April 12, 2001. William 

Self Associates, Inc., Tucson.

Sires, Earl

1984 Letter report, An Archaeological Clearance Survey of the Proposed New Right-of-Way, I10 at Rillito Creek, ADOT Project ER-10-4-(93), Pima County, Arizona. Arizona State 

Museum, Tucson.

1985 An Archaeological Clearance Survey of the Existing Marana Road Right-of-Way Between 

Interstate 10 and the West Town Limits (ADOT Project No. RSR-373-403PE) Marana, 

Pima County, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Slaughter, Mark, and Susan Bierer

1994 Results of a Cultural Resource Survey along a Portion of Avra Valley Road near Los 

Morteros and Huntingon Ruins, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental 

Consultants, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-43

Slawson, Laurie

1991 A Cultural Resources Inventory for 11 CAP Pressure Regulating Valve Station Sites in 

Tucson and Pima County, Arizona. Cultural & Environmental Systems, Tucson.

1993 A Cultural Resources Inventory of 1.5 Acres in Pima County, Arizona. Cultural & 

Environmental Systems, Tucson.

1994 A Class III Archaeological Survey of 4 Acres at Ina Road and Interstate 10 in Pima County, 

Arizona. Cultural & Environmental Systems, Tucson.

2001a A Cultural Resources Inventory for a Proposed Telecommunications Site (PH54XC514A) at 

11279 West Grier Road in Marana, Arizona. Aztlan Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 

2001b A Cultural Resources Inventory for a Proposed Telecommunications Site (PH35XC501F 

Debbie), at 11601 North Casa Grande Highway in Marana, Arizona. Aztlan Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson.

Sliva, Jane

1998 Letter report, Archaeological Survey of a Historic Residence at 818 North Eleventh 

Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Smith, Matthew B., and Charles W. Wheeler

2003a An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Second Rillito River Reroute: Addendum 7 to 

an Arcaheological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and 

California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Farmington.

2003b Final Report of an Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Rillito River Reroute: 

Addendum 6 to an Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T Nexgen Core Project, 

Arizona and California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Farmington.

Stephen, David V.M.

1996a Letter report, Tangerine Right-of-Way Section 6 & 31 Project. Professional 

Archaeological Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

1996b Letter Report for Red Roof Inn at Ina Project. Professional Archaeological Services and 

Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

1996c Report for Ina/Trico. Professional Archaeological Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., 

Tucson.

1997 Letter Report for AAtlas Storage Project. Professional Archaeological Services and 

Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

1999 Letter Report for Lon Adams Road Dental Office Project. Professional Archaeological 

Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-44

2000a Letter Report for Dove Mtn. Offsite Sewer (ASLD # 18-105008) Project. Professional 

Archaeological Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

2000b Letter Report for La Cholla @ Santa Cruz River Project. Professional Archaeological 

Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

2001a Letter Report for Commerce Ave. Project. Professional Archaeological Services and 

Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

2001b Letter Report for Section 5 Project. Professional Archaeological Services and 

Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

2001c Letter Report for Development Plan Project. Professional Archaeological Services and 

Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

2006 Archaeological Survey of the Peppertree Ranch Lot 42 Project Near Tucson, Pima County, 

Arizona. Professional Archaeological Services and Technologies – P.A.S.T., Tucson.

Sterner, Matthew

2001 Life along the Santa Cruz River: Results of an Archaeological Survey along 1.2 Miles of 

the Santa Cruz River from Grant Road to Fort Lowell Road, Pima County, Arizona. 

Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Stone, Bradford W.

1995 Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Bank Protection Project at the Cortaro Farms 

Road Bridge Crossing of the Santa Cruz River in Marana, Northeastern Pima County, 

Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

Swartz, Deborah L.

1994a Letter report, An Archaeological Survey along Interstate 10 from Ina Road to Hartman 

Lake. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1994b Letter report, An Archaeological Survey along Interstate 10 at the Canada del Oro Wash. 

Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1995 Letter report, An Archaeological Survey of a Parcel North of Grant Road along the Santa 

Cruz River. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1996 Letter report, An Archaeological Survey of Three Locations between Speedway and Ajo 

Roads. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Swidler, Nina B.

1985 Cultural Resources Investigation of Project I-10-4-496, Orange Grove Road, Pima County, 

Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-45

Teague, Lynn S., and Linda L. Mayro

1974 An Archaeological Survey of the Cholla-Saguaro Transmission Line Corridor. Cholla 

Project Archaeology Vol. 1-5. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Terhune, Claire E., and Daniel Garcia

2007 Results of Geotechnical Monitoring along I-10 Between Mileposts 232.0 and 247.4, Pinal 

and Pima Counties, Arizona. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.

Terzis, Lee 

1996 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed River Road Extension Pima County, Arizona. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Thiel, J. Homer

1993 Letter report, An Archaeological, Archival, and Architectural Examination of the 

Ronstadt/Splinter Brothers’ Warehouse Property. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Thurtle, Mary Charlotte

2000 An Archaeological Survey of One Half Acre at the Intersection of Ina Road and Camino 

del Oeste, Town of Marana, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Tompkins, Charles

1995 Results of Archaeological Monitoring of Trenches for Fiber Optic Lines on Court Avenue, 

Downtown Tucson, Arizona. Tierra Archaeological and Environmental Consultants, 

Tucson.

Touchin, Jewel

2001 A Cultural Resources Survey of State Route 87, between Mileposts 115.7 and 115.9, Pinal 

County, Arizona. HDR Engineering, Inc., Phoenix.

Touchin, Jewel, and Mark Brodbeck

2003 A Cultural Resources Survey of 38 Temporary Construction Easements and Nine Proposed 

Parcels of New Right-of-Way Along State Route 77 (Miracle Mile Road), Between 

Mileposts 68.36 and 69.55 in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. HDR Engineering, Inc., 

Phoenix.

Troncone, Steven M.

1990 Letter report, Cultural Resource Survey of Orange Grove Road, W.O. 4T905A, Skyline 

Drive to Oracle Road. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Tucker, David B.

2006 Cultural Resources Survey for Regional Transportation Authority Sidewalk Package 1, 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

2007 An Archaeological Survey of Four Parcels on West Miracle Mile, COT Project 07-33, 

Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-46

Tweedy, Jennifer K., and Gregory R. Woodall

1995 A Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey of an Approximately 0.68 Mile Long Segment 

of Tangerine Road Right-of-Way Near Interstate-10 in Northeastern Pima County, 

Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

Twilling, Shannon D., and India S. Hesse

2003 An Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Overhead Powerline Rebuild Located in Marana 

Estates, Pima County, Arizona (TRICO Work Order No. 30054). SWCA Environmental 

Consultants, Inc., Tucson.

Urban, Sharon F.

1980 Horizon Hills, Phase II. Clearinghouse 80-85-0041, survey project form. Arizona State 

Museum, Tucson.

1982a El Oasis Apartments. Clearinghouse 81-85-0227, survey project form. Arizona State 

Museum, Tucson.

1982b Marana Canning Co., Inc. Clearinghouse 82-10-0324, survey project form. Arizona State 

Museum, Tucson.

1982c Adonis Mobile Home Subdivision. Clearinghouse 82-85-0181, survey project form. 

Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1983 Tucson Low Income Housing. Clearinghouse 83-85-0119, survey project form. Arizona 

State Museum, Tucson.

Van Nimwegen, Lanita, and T. Kathleen Henderson

1991 Management Summary: Archaeological Assessments of the Central Arizona Irrigation 

and Drainage District, Pinal County, Arizona. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff.

Vint, James

1998 Letter report, Archaeological Survey for the Broadway Boulevard/6th Avenue Cast Iron 

Main Replacement. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999a Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Tucson Ready Mix Orange Grove Road Materials Pit. 

Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1999b Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Tucson Ready Mix Pantano Wash Materials Pit. 

Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Wallace, Henry D.

1995 Initial Archaeological Assessment of a Portion of the Knapp Parcel Southeast of the 

Confluence of the Rillito and Santa Cruz Rivers, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson.
Cultural Resources Appendix 

Cultural Resources Appendix-47

1996a Letter report, Archaeological Survey of a Sun Tran Maintenance Facility near Price Street 

and Romero Road. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1996b Letter report, Archaeological Survey for a Sewage Force Main along Silverbell Road from 

Ina to Cortaro and along a Portion of Ina Road. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

1998 Letter report, Archaeological Survey of an Access Corridor into a Sun Tran Maintenance 

Facility Along Runway Drive, North of Prince Road, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson. 

1999 Archaeological Survey of an Alternate Access Corridor into a Sun Tran Maintenance 

Facility along Runway Drive, North of Prince Road, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, 

Inc., Tucson.

Wilcox, Steve

2004 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed El Paso Corporation Cathodic Protection 

Station Number 1990 Site, Pinal County, Arizona. Environmental Planning Group, Inc., 

Phoenix. 

Wilson, John P.

1980 Cultural Resources of the Proposed Tucson Electric Tortolita –South Utility Corridor and 

Alternative Routes, Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona. Western New Mexico University 

Museum, Silver City.

1981 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Tucson Electric Relocated Segment, Pinal and 

Pima Counties, Arizona. Western New Mexico University Museum, Silver City. 

Woodall, Gregory R.

1996 Cultural Resources Survey of Miracle Mile Road (State Route 77), Between the Rillito 

Railroad Overpass and Oracle Road, within the City of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. 

Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

Worcherl, Helga

2000 Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Expansion of the Francisco Elias Esquer Park, Blue 

Moon Neighborhood, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Wright, Thomas E.

1992 A Cultural Resources Survey of 17.78 Miles of State Route 84 Right-of-Way Between Casa 

Grande and Eloy in Pinal County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

2001 A Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 322 Acres of Private Land for Cemex USA 

in Marana, Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.
 

Initial Screening Report and Appendix
Passenger Rail Corridor Study

Tucson to Phoenix

INITIAL SCREENING REPORT

LEVEL ONE RESULTS

Submitted by:

Arizona Department of Transportation

Multimodal Planning Division

206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 310B

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Submitted to:

Federal Transit Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Version 7.0 | January 24, 2013

Version 6.0 | January 9, 2013

Version 5.0 | November 20, 2012

Version 4.0 | September 26, 2012

Version 3.0 | September 5, 2012

Version 2.0 | July 16, 2012

Version 1.0 | June 28, 2012
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Alignment Screening .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Existing or Planned Transportation Use .......................................................................... 6

2.2 Infringement upon Sensitive Environments .................................................................... 9

2.3 Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans ............................................................. 16

2.4 Institutional Considerations .......................................................................................... 20

2.5 Length of Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................. 24

2.6 Alignment Corridor Weighting ...................................................................................... 24

2.7 Alignment Corridor Screening Results ........................................................................... 25

3.0 Potential Station Location Screening ........................................................................................ 28

3.1 Travel Markets ............................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Connections from the Station ....................................................................................... 34

3.3 Station Location Weighting ........................................................................................... 35

3.4 Station Location Screening Results ............................................................................... 36

4.0 Modes ...................................................................................................................................... 39

4.1 Bus ............................................................................................................................... 39

4.2 Rail ............................................................................................................................... 39

4.3 Air ................................................................................................................................ 39

5.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 40

Figures

Figure 1—Individual Corridor Segments ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2—Potential Station Locations ...................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3—Example Alignment Composed of Multiple Individual Corridor Segments ................................ 5

Figure 4—Existing or Planned Transportation Use ................................................................................... 7

Figure 5—Infringement on Biological Resources .................................................................................... 11

Figure 6—Historic/Cultural/Archeological Places ................................................................................... 14

Figure 7—Land Use Compatibility .......................................................................................................... 17

Figure 8—Institutional Character of the Corridor ................................................................................... 22

Figure 9—Segments Used in Alternatives for Further Study ................................................................... 26
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

ii

Tables

Table 1—Existing Transportation Use Measurement (Threshold by Alternative Alignment) ..................... 6

Table 2—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Segment ...................................................... 8

Table 3—Part 1 Transportation Operations Measurement Example Calculation for

Alternative E-7 ....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 4—Part 2 Transportation Operations Measurement Example Calculation for

Alternative E-7 ....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 5—Infringement upon Biological Resources Measurement Threshold by Alternative

Alignment ............................................................................................................................ 10

Table 6—Infringement upon Biological Resources by Segment .............................................................. 12

Table 7—National Register of Historical Places Measurement Threshold by Alternative

Alignment ............................................................................................................................ 13

Table 8—Infringement upon Known Historic Places by Segment ............................................................ 15

Table 9—Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans ....................................................................... 16

Table 10—Existing Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Segment ........................................................ 18

Table 11—Future Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Segment .......................................................... 19

Table 12—Institutional Considerations .................................................................................................. 21

Table 13—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Segment .............................................................. 23

Table 14—Length of Alignment Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................................... 24

Table 15—Alignment Corridor Weighting .............................................................................................. 25

Table 16—Segments Advanced and Removed for Study ........................................................................ 27

Table 17—Station Area Demographic Weighting ................................................................................... 29

Table 18—Commuter Station Rankings, One Mile Catchment Area........................................................ 30

Table 19—Commuter Station Rankings, Five Mile Catchment Area ........................................................ 31

Table 20—Intercity Station Rankings, One Mile Catchment Area ........................................................... 32

Table 21—Intercity Station Rankings, Five Mile Catchment Area ........................................................... 33

Table 22—Station Area Demographic Ranking ....................................................................................... 34

Table 23—Station Area Transportation Connections Weighting ............................................................. 35

Table 24—Station Area Connections Ranking ........................................................................................ 35

Table 25—Station Area Weighting ......................................................................................................... 36

Table 26—Commuter Potential Station Location Ranking ...................................................................... 37

Table 27—Intercity Potential Station Location Ranking .......................................................................... 38
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

1

1.0 Introduction

This document outlines the initial screening of the range, or “universe,” of alternatives that was

conducted for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study (APRCS) by applying the process established in

the Evaluation Methodology Report. Each project element - alignment, station, and service type - was

evaluated independently according to the methods documented in this report. The intent of this initial

screening was to use the project elements to form full corridor alignments, including stations and modal

choice. The detailed evaluation of the full alignments is included in this document as part of the

Appendix. The alternatives which were advanced to the second level of evaluation in this study are

described in the companion document Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum.

In general, the project elements were evaluated as follows:

• Alignments: Measurements were made on each unique corridor segment and combined into

alignments connecting the two ends of the corridor. The alignments were compared using a

variety of factors outlined in Section 2.0. Figure 1 shows each corridor segment and its

associated reference number.

• Stations: Potential station locations (shown in Figure 2) were evaluated based on defined

catchment areas differentiating between commuter and intercity travel markets. The process

utilized existing and projected population and employment data to assess the travel market

potential, as well as measures of overall mobility and accessibility, and is described in

Section 3.0.

• Service Type: The evaluation of service type, or mode, compared the feasibility of bus, rail,

highway and air modes to serve the Tucson to Phoenix corridor. The service type analysis is at

an overview level and is focused on the fact that there is substantial other work already

underway on highway projects in the corridor and that air service compared to other surface

alternatives does not provide a realistic option.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

2

Figure 1—Individual Corridor Segments
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

3

Figure 2—Potential Station Locations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

2.0 Alignment Screening

For evaluation purposes, the 40 individual corridor segments shown in Figure 1 were combined to create

unique full corridor-long alignment alternatives. Every reasonable combination of segments (e.g.,

shortest path, no significant out of direction travel, logical geographic placement within the corridor)

that could be used to connect Tucson to Phoenix was identified at this step, which yielded a total of 142

alignment alternatives. For purposes of this screening it was not practical to fully evaluate the 142

alignment alternatives. Instead, the screening was conducted on the 40 unique segments. At a later

stage in the study, a more detailed evaluation will be conducted on a reduced number of alternatives to

determine the most feasible alternative.

An example of how the individual corridor segments were combined into alignment alternatives, in this

case Alignment N-6, is shown in Figure 3. A description of how the segments were combined to create

the 142 alignments is included in the Appendix.

The measurement categories utilized for this stage of analysis were:

1. Existing or Planned Transportation Use in Corridor,

2. Infringement upon Sensitive Environments,

3. Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans,

4. Institutional Considerations, and

5. Length of Alignment.

For the alignment screening, measurements were made in categories 1 through 4 for each of the 40

segments, with measurements for category 5 being applied to the entire length of the alignment. The

outcomes of each measurement criterion were scored on a scale of 1-3, with 3 being the most desirable

and 1 being the least desirable, shown graphically as:

—3

—2

—1

The detail of how individual corridor segments were combined to create the alignment alternatives is

included in Table 1 of the Appendix.As the detailed alignments have not yet been refined at the initial

screening stage, a four-mile buffer along each potential alignment alternative was utilized to assess

conditions surrounding each alignment to allow for flexibility in addressing any issues that may arise

during later stages of work. The primary approach for each of the measures was to identify the

percentage of the length or surface area for each project feature within the four mile width, although a

few of the categories allowed for a simple counting of the number of features within the four-mile

width. The detail of each of these measurements is included in the next section.

To complete the alignment screening, the results of the individual measurements were combined,

weighted and summarized for each alignment alternative to evaluate its overall performance.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

5

Figure 3—Example Alignment Composed of Multiple Individual Corridor Segments

This is an example of how segments were combined into an alternative. Here, segments identified by numbers 43, 42, 40, 37, 35, 24, 18, 9, 5, 3,

2 (sequenced from south to north) were combined to create alternative N-6.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

6

2.1 Existing or Planned Transportation Use

Within the 40 segments identified for evaluation there are existing roadways, existing railroads, planned

future roadways, or a combination of existing and future roadway and rail within a single corridor. The

existing or planned transportation use in a corridor may enable, support, or conflict with a proposed

transportation use identified in this study. In order to assess the existing or planned transportation use

in the corridor, the compatibility of the 40 segments was identified as “manageable,” “involved” or

“difficult,” as defined below.

• Manageable: Current or future roadway and/or rail in corridor enables new transportation use

• Involved: Current or future roadway and/or rail in corridor supports new transportation use

• Difficult: Current or future roadway and/or rail in corridor creates conflict for new

transportation use

Each alignment alternative was then evaluated based on the summary of the existing or planned

transportation use within each segment. The overall compatibility of an alignment with existing and/or

planned transportation use was calculated by proportionally weighting the percent manageable,

involved or difficult within each alignment alternative and normalized by subtracting from the highest

possible value of 300, which is the total maximum value if the entire corridor was considered

manageable, as shown below.

Normalized Threshold Value = 300 - (% Difficult x 100) +

(% Involved x 200) +

(% Manageable x 300)

Table 1 details the thresholds and corresponding evaluation value assigned for existing transportation

use evaluation. The summary of existing transportation operations by segment is shown graphically

Figure 4 and detailed in Table 2; segment numbers correspond to those shown in Figure 1. The summary

of existing transportation operations by alternative alignment is shown in Table 2 of the Appendix.

Table 1—Existing Transportation Use Measurement (Threshold by

Alternative Alignment)

Compatibility with

Existing/ Planned

Transportation Use

Normalized Threshold

Value Evaluation Value

High < 74 ●

Medium 75–99 ۗ

Low > 100 ○
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

7

Figure 4—Existing or Planned Transportation Use
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

8

Table 2—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Segment

Segment

Number

% Length

Difficult

% Length

Involved

% Length

Manageable

Total Length

(Miles)

1 100% - - 28.7

2 100% - - 5.9

3 100% - - 4.0

4 55% 45% - 4.4

5 - 100% - 8.3

6 - - 100% 2.2

7 100% - - 1.5

8 100% - - 6.1

9 61% - 39% 23.6

11 - 84% 15% 7.5

12 18% - 84% 7.4

13 28% - 72% 77.4

14 55% - 45% 27.8

15 100% - - 13.9

16 - - 100% 12.2

17 - 100% - 26.4

18 - - 100% 16.1

20 100% - - 6.8

21 100% - - 25.1

22 - 100% - 9.1

23 - - 100% 5.4

24 - - 100% 9.3

26 79% - 21% 12.1

27 - - 100% 9.8

28 - - 100% 12.6

29 - 100% - 3.9

30 - - 100% 31.0

31 - - 100% 14.7

32 - - 100% 9.8

33 - - 100% 12.5

34 - 100% - 15.4

35 - - 100% 17.8

36 - - 100% 3.1

37 - - 100% 18.3

38 - - 100% 23.8

39 - - 100% 50.6

40 - - 100% 3.9

41 100% - - 40.5

42 60% 40% 21.2

43 100% - - 4.6
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

9

Example: Using alignment alternative E-71 as an example, Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the process

used to calculate the Transportation Operations Measurement using the information in Table 1, Table 2

and Appendix Table 2.

Table 3—Part 1 Transportation Operations Measurement Example Calculation for Alternative E-7

Segment

Number

Difficult Involved Manageable Length

Miles % Miles % Miles % (miles)

2 5.9 100% 5.9

4 2.4 54% 2.0 46% 4.4

7 1.5 100% 1.5

12 1.3 17% 6.2 83% 7.4

14 15.3 55% 12.4 45% 27.8

31 14.7 100% 14.7

33 12.5 100% 12.5

36 3.1 100% 3.1

37 18.3 100% 18.3

40 3.9 100% 3.9

41 40.5 100% 40.5

43 4.6 99% 0.0 1% 4.6

TOTAL 71.4 2.0 71.2 144.6

Table 4—Part 2 Transportation Operations Measurement Example Calculation for Alternative E-7

Summary Total Miles % Weight Value

Weighted

Threshold Value

(rounded)

Normalized

Threshold Value

Difficult 71.4 49.4% 100 49

300 – 200 = 100

Involved 2.0 1.4% 200 3

Manageable 71.2 49.2% 300 148

TOTAL 144.6 100% 200

Using Table 1, the value of 100 is considered to have low compatibility with existing/planned transportation operations and, therefore, receives

a ranking of .

2.2 Infringement upon Sensitive Environments

At the initial screening level, the impact of each of the 40 segments on sensitive environments was

assessed based on two readily available data sets: biological resources and historic places. The biological

resources assessment was based upon the Species and Habitat Conservation Guide (SHCG) tool

published in 2011 by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This SHCG tool provided a broad regional

assessment of conservation potential in the study area. Historic places were assessed based on those

listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which documents historic buildings, districts, sites,

structures and objects. Several other environmental concerns were addressed in other measurement

categories, including land use, land ownership and length of alignment.

1

 Outlined in the introduction of Section 2.0 and detailed in the Appendix.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

10

In the SHCG, conservation potential is measured in six levels, as shown in Figure 5, where 1 is the lowest

conservation potential (lightest blue color) and 6 is the highest conservation potential (darkest blue). To

assess the biological resources impact by segment the levels were combined and analyzed as follows:

• Low Conservation Potential: Levels 1-2

• Medium Conservation Potential: Levels 3-4

• High Conservation Potential: Levels 5-6

The Low, Medium and High Conservation Potential was quantified in square miles by segment and

summarized by alignment alternative. The infringement of an alignment upon biological resources was

calculated by proportionally weighting the percentage of conservation potential in each alignment

alternative with higher benefit accruing to the high conservation areas, as shown below.

Normalized Threshold Value = (% Low Conservation Potential x 100) +

(% Medium Conservation Potential x 200) +

(% High Conservation Potential x 300)

This normalized threshold value was then assigned a quantitative value reflecting the overall

conservation potential for an alignment. Table 5 details the thresholds associated with each level of

conservation potential as well as the evaluation value assigned for each alternative alignment. The

summary of the infringement on biological resources by segment is detailed in Table 6, and the

summary of infringement on sensitive environments by alternative alignment is in Table 3 of the

Appendix.

Table 5—Infringement upon Biological Resources Measurement

Threshold by Alternative Alignment

Conservation

Potential

Normalized Threshold

Value Evaluation Value

Low > 200 ●

Medium 200–180 ۗ

High < 180 ○
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

11

Figure 5—Infringement on Biological Resources
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

12

Table 6—Infringement upon Biological Resources by Segment

Segment

Number

Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential Total Area

(acres) acres % acres % acres %

1 23.56 21.1% 82.20 73.7% 5.77 5.2% 111.53

2 0.01 0.0% 21.19 91.0% 2.08 8.9% 23.28

3 0.03 0.2% 12.49 77.8% 3.54 22.1% 16.05

4 0.00 0.0% 14.83 86.4% 2.32 13.5% 17.16

5 0.14 0.4% 31.14 96.2% 1.08 3.3% 32.36

6 - - 8.91 100.0% 0.00 - 8.91

7 0.06 1.4% 3.82 86.0% 0.55 12.4% 4.44

8 - - 24.93 99.0% 0.26 1.0% 25.19

9 19.43 21.1% 59.96 65.1% 12.68 13.8% 92.06

11 1.12 3.8% 27.08 90.9% 1.58 5.3% 29.78

12 1.04 3.5% 28.32 95.4% 0.30 1.0% 29.67

13 142.38 46.2% 146.83 47.7% 18.90 6.1% 308.11

14 92.75 83.9% 17.43 15.8% 0.31 0.3% 110.49

15 32.29 60.8% 20.17 38.0% 0.66 1.2% 53.13

16 0.30 0.6% 41.95 90.4% 4.16 9.0% 46.41

17 10.21 9.7% 85.08 81.2% 9.53 9.1% 104.81

18 30.55 47.6% 22.69 35.4% 10.88 17.0% 64.12

20 12.34 42.7% 15.81 54.7% 0.74 2.6% 28.89

21 41.64 40.3% 59.85 57.9% 1.95 1.9% 103.45

22 11.23 31.3% 21.80 60.7% 2.87 8.0% 35.90

23 7.06 32.7% 13.64 63.2% 0.87 4.0% 21.57

24 6.70 18.0% 15.05 40.4% 15.52 41.6% 37.27

26 18.58 38.5% 29.25 60.7% 0.39 0.8% 48.22

27 25.47 65.8% 12.78 33.0% 0.45 1.2% 38.70

28 18.53 38.1% 25.37 52.1% 4.78 9.8% 48.67

29 0.19 1.2% 5.63 36.6% 9.58 62.2% 15.40

30 14.70 19.4% 17.50 23.1% 43.69 57.6% 75.89

31 52.56 91.3% 4.27 7.4% 0.72 1.3% 57.55

32 33.64 88.9% 3.96 10.5% 0.25 0.7% 37.84

33 32.98 63.7% 16.18 31.3% 2.61 5.0% 51.76

34 13.97 22.7% 24.47 39.8% 23.06 37.5% 61.50

35 19.48 27.4% 12.98 18.2% 38.71 54.4% 71.17

36 5.09 42.4% 1.85 15.4% 5.06 42.1% 12.01

37 31.95 43.6% 14.72 20.1% 26.53 36.2% 73.20

38 23.19 24.4% 21.90 23.0% 50.05 52.6% 95.13

39 4.15 2.0% 50.93 25.1% 147.68 72.8% 202.76

40 2.83 18.2% 7.58 48.8% 5.10 32.9% 15.52

41 44.61 27.6% 85.44 52.9% 31.58 19.5% 161.64

42 7.23 8.4% 53.11 62.1% 25.25 29.5% 85.59

43 0.22 1.2% 16.51 92.6% 1.08 6.1% 17.82
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

13

Known historical, cultural and archeological places, as documented in the National Register of Historic

Places, are shown graphically in Figure 6. To assess the potential effects on these resources, the total

number of resources was identified for each segment and summarized by alternative alignment. The

potential impacts to resources were assigned a value based on the number of sites within the 4-mile

wide evaluation area, consisent with the thresholds defined in Table 7.

Table 7—National Register of Historical Places Measurement

Threshold by Alternative Alignment

Potential Impacts

Normalized

Threshold Value Evaluation Value

Low < 175 ●

Medium 175–225 ۗ

High >225 ○

The summary of the potential impacts on biological resources and historic/cultural/archeological places

is shown by segment in Table 8. The evaluation by alignment alternative is included in the summary of

infringement upon sensitive environments shown in Table 3 of the Appendix.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

14

Figure 6—Historic/Cultural/Archeological Places

Source: National Register of Historic Places
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

15

Table 8—Infringement upon Known

Historic Places by Segment

Segment

Number

National Register of Historic

Places (Total)

1 38

2 268

3 76

4 35

5 53

6 18

7 5

8 5

9 -

11 -

12 2

13 36

14 -

15 3

16 12

17 18

18 -

20 -

21 6

22 -

23 -

24 -

26 -

27 -

28 -

29 5

30 47

31 105

32 -

33 -

34 -

35 -

36 -

37 3

38 -

39 40

40 -

41 3

42 33

43 110
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

16

2.3 Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans

Existing land use data and future land use plans of communities within the study area were reviewed to

assess the compatibility of a transportation corridor with community land use plans. Both existing and

future resident and employment land uses were identified.

As the study corridor covers many jurisdictions, there was a range of land use terminology utilized in

adopted plans. The most common discrepancy across the corridor was the land use classification of

“entitled residential and employment,” used in Pinal County and the Cities of Marana and Oro Valley,

defined as lands that possess all requisite approvals to begin construction, a term not used at all in the

other jurisdictions. Therefore for evaluation purposes, “entitled residential and employment” was

categorized as “existing,” to be consistent with naming conventions in Maricopa County and elsewhere

in Pima County.

For this measure, the land use compatibility within the 4 mile alignment was classified as “high

compatibility,” “medium compatibility,” or “low compatibility,” as described below:

• High Compatibility: Most of the land is currently undeveloped and could accommodate a future

transportation corridor

• Medium Compatibility: Some of the land is currently undeveloped and could accommodate a

future transportation corridor

• Low Compatibility: A significant portion of the land is currently developed and it would be

difficult to accommodate a future transportation corridor

Because this analysis is for the overall impacts of the alternative alignment, the alternatives that would

impact future residential or employment lands were preferred over alternatives that would impact

existing and entitled lands. The rationale for this treatment was that disrupting existing land uses may

require extensive mitigation or acquisition to build whereas future land uses can be developed to

accommodate the transportation corridor, minimizing infringement upon the environment and

seamlessly integrating into the community. The station evaluation, addressed in Section 3.0, addresses

the advantage for existing residential and employment near specific station areas.

The weighting and ranking threshold values used to assess compatibility with local plans, as well as the

thresholds for levels of compatibility and evaluation value are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9—Compatibility with Community Land Use Plans

Level of

Compatibility with

Local Plans

Percent of Total

Length Thresholds Evaluation Value

High > 90% ●

Medium 90–75% ۗ

Low <75% ○
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

17

The summary of the land use compatibility is shown by segment in Tables 10 and 11, and represented

graphically in Figure 7. The evaluation by alignment alternative is shown in Table 4 of the Appendix.

Figure 7—Land Use Compatibility
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

18

Table 10—Existing Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Segment

Segment

Number

Segment

Area (sq

miles)

Existing or entitled residential and employment land uses

Existing

Employment

(%)

Existing

Residential

(sq mi)

Existing

Residential

(%)

Residential

Entitlements

(sq mi)

Residential

Entitlements

(%)

Existing

Employment

(sq mi)

1 111.5 23.10 21.0% - - 22 20.0%

2 23.3 6.6 28.3% - - 11 47.2%

3 16.1 2.5 15.5% - - 7.6 47.2%

4 17.2 3.7 21.5% - - 9.5 55.2%

5 32.4 16.2 50.0% - - 11.7 36.1%

6 8.9 4.5 50.6% - - 3.5 39.3%

7 4.4 2.5 56.8% - - 0.7 15.9%

8 25.2 14.2 56.3% - - 7.7 30.6%

9 92.1 37.4 40.6% 0.3 0.3% 12.8 13.9%

11 29.8 11.7 39.3% - - 8.9 29.9%

12 29.7 13.6 45.8% - - 9.9 33.3%

13 308.1 41.6 13.5% 28.9 9.4% 31.9 10.4%

14 110.5 4.8 4.3% 27.1 24.5% 2.4 2.2%

15 53.1 1 1.9% - - 2.6 4.9%

16 46.4 26 56.0% - - 11.6 25.0%

17 104.8 39.5 37.7% 12.7 12.1% 15.1 14.4%

18 64.1 1.5 2.3% 15.4 24.0% - -

20 28.9 2.5 8.7% - - 0.1 0.3%

21 103.4 3.1 3.0% 2.5 2.4% 1.1 1.1%

22 35.9 0.9 2.5% 12.2 34.0% 2.1 5.8%

23 21.6 0.8 3.7% 13.8 63.9% 0.8 3.7%

24 37.3 1.3 3.5% 12.1 32.4% 1.5 4.0%

26 48.2 1.7 3.5% 2.8 5.8% 0.1 0.2%

27 38.7 2.7 7.0% 20.6 53.2% 3 7.8%

28 48.7 3.6 7.4% 15.8 32.4% 1.3 2.7%

29 15.4 1.6 10.4% 4.2 27.3% 0.8 5.2%

30 75.9 4.4 5.8% 11.7 15.4% 1.7 2.2%

31 57.6 3.8 6.6% 18.5 32.1% 5.5 9.5%

32 37.8 3.8 10.1% 18.5 48.9% 1.3 3.4%

33 51.8 2.3 4.4% 15.3 29.5% 2.3 4.4%

34 61.5 1.4 2.3% 16 26.0% 1.5 2.4%

35 71.2 1.6 2.2% 10.5 14.7% 1.4 2.0%

36 12 0.5 4.2% 2 16.7% 0.1 0.8%

37 73.2 0.6 0.8% 3.1 4.2% 0.9 1.2%

38 95.1 1.5 1.6% 0.3 0.3% 0.5 0.5%

39 202.8 30.4 15.0% 1.5 0.7% 9.5 4.7%

40 15.5 0.2 1.3% 0.4 2.6% - -

41 161.6 27.5 17.0% - - 10.5 6.5%

42 85.6 23.3 27.2% - - 10 11.7%

43 17.8 4.4 24.7% - - 5.3 29.8%
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

19

Table 11—Future Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Segment

Segment

Number

Segment Area

 (sq mi)

Future residential or employment land uses

Future

Residential

 (sq mi)

Future

Residential

(%)

Future

Employment

(sq mi)

Future

Employment

(%)

1 111.5 35 31.4% 29.2 26.2%

2 23.3 7 30.0% 11.9 51.1%

3 16.1 2.8 17.4% 6.5 40.4%

4 17.2 3.9 22.7% 10 58.1%

5 32.4 16.5 50.9% 10.9 33.6%

6 8.9 4.5 50.6% 3.3 37.1%

7 4.4 2.6 59.1% 0.7 15.9%

8 25.2 14.4 57.1% 7 27.8%

9 92.1 68.3 74.2% 17.9 19.4%

11 29.8 12.2 40.9% 10.7 35.9%

12 29.7 14 47.1% 11.1 37.4%

13 308.1 179.2 58.2% 66.3 21.5%

14 110.5 32.9 29.8% 11.1 10.0%

15 53.1 3.4 6.4% 5.1 9.6%

16 46.4 27.2 58.6% 12.1 26.1%

17 104.8 68 64.9% 28.7 27.4%

18 64.1 53 82.7% 5.5 8.6%

20 28.9 2.6 9.0% 0.9 3.1%

21 103.4 11.7 11.3% 1.2 1.2%

22 35.9 20.4 56.8% 2.7 7.5%

23 21.6 16.2 75.0% 1.8 8.3%

24 37.3 25.8 69.2% 8.2 22.0%

26 48.2 9.6 19.9% 2.2 4.6%

27 38.7 30.8 79.6% 6.7 17.3%

28 48.7 35.8 73.5% 6.9 14.2%

29 15.4 12.1 78.6% 3 19.5%

30 75.9 57.6 75.9% 12.1 15.9%

31 57.6 41.2 71.5% 13.7 23.8%

32 37.8 30.4 80.4% 4.6 12.2%

33 51.8 31.7 61.2% 16.6 32.0%

34 61.5 33.6 54.6% 25.9 42.1%

35 71.2 36.3 51.0% 35 49.2%

36 12 8.1 67.5% 3.9 32.5%

37 73.2 44.3 60.5% 21.3 29.1%

38 95.1 56.9 59.8% 8.7 9.1%

39 202.8 115.9 57.1% 6.1 3.0%

40 15.5 12.6 81.3% 2.7 17.4%

41 161.6 14.8 9.2% 14.3 8.8%

42 85.6 28.1 32.8% 15.4 18.0%

43 17.8 - - - -
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

20

2.4 Institutional Considerations

Each alignment alternative was evaluated for potential institutional considerations by measuring the

percentage of each alignment alternative subject to the range of institutional controls identified as the

following (and depicted in Figure 8):

• National Monuments, National Parks, or Military Areas,

• Tribal Lands,

• Existing or future parks/ preserves, wilderness areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (as

designated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)) or Game and Fish Lands,

• Federal Lands (e.g., BLM or Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)), or

• State Trust Land, county, or city lands.

The management and control of land varies by institution. The following approvals are required to

convert land for use as a transportation corridor:

• National Monuments, National Parks, or Military Areas require Congressional approval and have

potential Section 4(f) implications,

• Tribal Lands require Tribal approval and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) concurrence,

• Existing or future parks/ preserves, wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern, or

Game and Fish lands have potential Section 4(f) implications,

• Federal Lands require Federal agency approval, and

• State Trust Land, county, or city lands require approval by the applicable jurisdiction(s).

For this measure, the land use compatibility within the 4-mile wide alignment was classified as “high

compatibility,” “medium compatibility,” or “low compatibility,” as described below, with thresholds

summarized by institution type in Table 12.

• High Compatibility: Minimal impacts to national protected, tribal, park, or Federal lands, or

significant use of State Trust lands

• Medium Compatibility: Some impacts to national protected, tribal, park, Federal lands, or State

Trust lands

• Low Compatibility: Significant impacts to national protected, tribal, park, or Federal lands, or

minimal use of State Trust lands

The summary of the land use compatibility factors is shown by segment in Table 13. The evaluation of

institutional considerations by alignment alternative is shown in Table 5 of the Appendix.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

21

Table 12—Institutional Considerations

Level of

Compatibility with

Institutional

Considerations

Percent of Total

Alignment Thresholds Evaluation Value

National Monuments, National Forests, National Parks, Wilderness Areas,

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

High < 1% ●

Medium 1–5% ۗ

Low > 5% ○

Tribal Lands

High < 5% ●

Medium 5–15% ۗ

Low > 15% ○

Parks (State, Regional, or Local) or Game and Fish Areas

High < 3% ●

Medium 3–5% ۗ

Low > 5% ○

Federal Lands and Military Areas

High < 2% ●

Medium 2–5% ۗ

Low > 5% ○

State Trust Lands

High < 20% ●

Medium 20–15% ۗ

Low > 15% ○
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

22

Figure 8—Institutional Character of the Corridor

*Parks & Wilderness Areas include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Federal Lands includes Military Areas.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

23

Table 13—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Segment

Segment

Number

Segment

Area

(sq mi)

National

Protected Lands Tribal Lands Parks Federal Lands

State Trust

Lands

(sq mi) (%) (sq mi) (%) (sq mi) (%) (sq mi) (%) (sq mi) (%)

1 111.5 - 0.0% 38 34.1% 5.3 4.8% 0.3 0.3% 0.9 0.8%

2 23.3 0.1 0.4% - - 0.6 2.6% - - 0.3 1.3%

3 16.1 0.6 3.7% - - 2.8 17.4% 0.1 0.6% - -

4 17.2 - - - - 0.4 2.3% - - - -

5 32.4 - - 0.9 2.8% 0.5 1.5% 0.1 0.3% 0.1 0.3%

6 8.9 - - - - 0.1 1.1% - - - -

7 4.4 - - - - 0.8 18.2% - - - -

8 25.2 - - - - 0.5 2.0% - - 0.1 0.4%

9 92.1 - - - - 0.7 0.8% 1.1 1.2% 28.3 30.7%

11 29.8 - - 3 10.1% 3 10.1% - - 0.1 0.3%

12 29.7 - - 2.9 9.8% 0.8 2.7% - - 0.1 0.3%

13 308.1 6.8 2.2% - - 10.7 3.5% 47.3 15.4% 22.1 7.2%

14 110.5 - - 64.6 58.5% - - 0.3 0.3% 4.3 3.9%

15 53.1 - - 51.8 97.6% - - - - - -

16 46.4 - - - - 0.6 1.3% - - 0.1 0.2%

17 104.8 - - 0.1 0.1% 0.7 0.7% - - 11.6 11.1%

18 64.1 - - - - - - 2.3 3.6% 37.5 58.5%

20 28.9 - - 25.5 88.2% - - - - - -

21 103.4 0.1 0.1% 89.2 86.3% - - - - 0.3 0.3%

22 35.9 0.1 0.3% 10.1 28.1% - - 1.5 4.2% 5.6 15.6%

23 21.6 - - 0.4 1.9% - - 2.1 9.7% 3.5 16.2%

24 37.3 - - - 0.0% - - 0.4 1.1% 2.7 7.2%

26 48.2 - - 37.9 78.6% - - 0.3 0.6% 3.5 7.3%

27 38.7 - - 0.1 0.3% - - 0.6 1.6% 4.4 11.4%

28 48.7 - - 2.9 6.0% - - 0.1 0.2% 3.1 6.4%

29 15.4 0.6 3.9% - - - - 0.1 0.6% - -

30 75.9 0.3 0.4% - - - - 1.4 1.8% 35 46.1%

31 57.6 0.3 0.5% - - - - - - 1.9 3.3%

32 37.8 - - 0.1 0.3% - - - - 3.2 8.5%

33 51.8 0.5 1.0% - - - - - - 0.7 1.4%

34 61.5 - - - - - - 0.3 0.5% 8.1 13.2%

35 71.2 - - - - 0.6 0.8% 1.2 1.7% 18.5 26.0%

36 12 - - - - 0.2 1.7% - - 4.9 40.8%

37 73.2 - - - - 14 19.1% 2.5 3.4% 55.8 76.2%

38 95.1 - - - - 23.2 24.4% 24 25.2% 62.4 65.6%

39 202.8 11.6 5.7% - - 13.3 6.6% 5.9 2.9% 110.5 54.5%

40 15.5 - - - - - - 1 6.5% 3.8 24.5%

41 161.6 5.6 3.5% 12.2 7.5% - - 12.3 7.6% 29.2 18.1%

42 85.6 0.2 0.2% - - 0.3 0.4% 1 1.2% 10.1 11.8%

43 17.8 - - - - 0.3 1.7% - - - -
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

24

2.5 Length of Alignment Alternatives

The length of each alignment alternative was utilized for the initial screening to represent a range of

potential impacts, including:

• Financial: in general, the longer an alternative, the higher the anticipated cost

• Constructability: the longer an alternative, the more likely to encounter difficult construction

issues

• Environmental: the longer an alternative, the more opportunity to infringe upon sensitive

environments

• Safety: the longer an alternative, the more likely the exposure to conflicts

• Ridership: the longer an alternative, the longer the travel time

Because of the relatively flat topography in this region, no alternatives were considered which would

incur significant, costly design solutions (e.g. tunneling through a mountain) as a trade-off to length.

For this measure, the alternative lengths were compared and classified for evaluation purposes as

“below average,” “average,” and “above average,” as described in Table 14.

Table 14—Length of Alignment Alternatives Evaluation

Length of Alignment Length Thresholds Evaluation Value

Below Average < 125 ●

Average 125–150 ۗ

Above Average > 150 ○

The length of each alternative alignment is shown in Table 6 of the Appendix. Alternative alignments

ranged from a minimum of 117.2 miles to a maximum of 185.7 miles, where the average alternative

alignment length was 140.7 miles. The alternatives were evaluated based on the overall length of each

alternative and assigned an evaluation value based on the thresholds shown in Table 14. The longer

alternatives were considered less desirable due to considerations such as higher cost, increased travel

time and higher likelihood of environmental impacts.

2.6 Alignment Corridor Weighting

Each of the alignments was evaluated based on the combined measurements presented in Sections 2.1

through 2.5. The evaluation value assigned to each alternative for each measurement category and

subcategory was weighted based on the significance and impact of each as well as input from the

scoping process, as documented in the Scoping Report prepared April 2012. Given that there were five

overall measurement categories, several with subcategories, a total value of seven was allotted,

allowing each of the measurement categories and subcategories to be weighted according to

importance. These weights are detailed in Table 15. At this early stage of the Alternatives Analysis,
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

25

because of the importance and multiple influences of the length measurement, this was weighted as the

most significant measurement category.

Table 15—Alignment Corridor Weighting

Measurement Category Weight

%

Subcategory

%

Measurement

Category

Measurement Category 1: Overall Existing Transportation Operations 1.0 14.3% 14.3%

Measurement Category 2: Overall Environmental 1.1 - 15.7%

Subcategory 2.1 Infringement upon biological resources 0.8 11.4%

Subcategory 2.2 National Register of Historic Places 0.3 4.3%

Measurement Category 3: Overall compatibility with adopted land use

and transportation plans

1.0 - 14.3%

Subcategory 3.1 Existing/Entitled Residential and Employment 0.3 4.3%

Subcategory 3.2 Future Residential and Employment 0.7 10.0%

Measurement Category 4: Institutional Considerations 0.9 - 12.9%

Subcategory 4.1 National Protected Lands 0.1 1.4%

Subcategory 4.2 Tribal Lands 0.5 7.1%

Subcategory 4.3 Parks 0.1 1.4%

Subcategory 4.4 Federal Lands 0.1 1.4%

Subcategory 4.5 State Trust Lands 0.1 1.4%

Measurement Category 5: Length 3 42.9% 42.9%

TOTAL 7 100.0% 100.0%

2.7 Alignment Corridor Screening Results

Using the weighting and ranking process described in the previous sections, the individual segments and

overall alternative alignments were evaluated and ranked. Segments which were evaluated to have the

lowest ranking,○, in all measures were eliminated from further evaluation. For the length measure,

which was evaluated by overall alignment, the segments which were only included in alignments ranking

were removed from further evaluation.

Based on this evaluation, 10 segments were removed from further consideration. The 10 segments

removed are depicted graphically in gray in Figure 9. The green segments are those advanced for further

study. The segments advanced for further study and removed from further consideration are

summarized in Table 16. The gray routes or portions thereof may be reintroduced if needed based on

stakeholder input and further evaluation.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

26

Figure 9—Segments Used in Alternatives for Further Study
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

27

Table 16—Segments Advanced and Removed for Study

Segment

Number Advanced Removed

1 X

2 X

3 X

4 X

5 X

6 X

7 X

8 X

9 X

11 X

12 X

13 X

14 X

15 X

16 X

17 X

18 X

20 X

21 X

22 X

23 X

24 X

26 X

27 X

28 X

29 X

30 X

31 X

32 X

33 X

34 X

35 X

36 X

37 X

38 X

39 X

40 X

41 X

42 X

43 X
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

28

3.0 Potential Station Location Screening

This section describes screening methods used to evaluate potential station locations, including the

inputs and parameters used, and summarizes the results of the application of each measure.

As depicted graphically in Figure 2, 38 potential station locations were identified and evaluated as part

of the initial screening process. As part of the screening, each station was broadly assessed based on the

proximity to potential travel markets and access to transportation connections with the intention of

quantitatively defining the potential ridership market of a given location. The broad assessment

differentiated between commuter rail and intercity rail services, generally focusing on a one mile

catchment area for commuter rail and a five mile catchment area for intercity rail, as described in detail

in Section 3.1. The purpose of the screening at this level was to:

• Serve as a guide for development of alternatives

• Enable an understanding of how well-prepared communities are for high capacity transit

• Provide input for station typology suggestions

This section describes measurement inputs and parameters used to evaluate the potential stations.

Broadly, the criteria can be categorized into two groupings: 1) travel markets, which encompass

proximity to existing and future population and employment centers, and 2) transportation connections

which assess first and last mile connections available from the station.

It should be noted that for purposes of the initial screening, a preliminary location within each

community was selected to permit evaluation. This location was used for evaluation purposes only and

does not necessarily indicate a precise location of the potential station, which has yet to be determined

and will be assessed in later stages of this study. At this level, stations were evaluated and compared

using travel markets and connections. No stations were removed from evaluation at this stage.

3.1 Travel Markets

The travel market evaluation is a multi-part measure that is evaluated and ranked using existing and

future population and employment information within specified radii of the selected location as

quantitative measures to determine commuter and intercity stations with greatest ridership potential.

Emphasis is placed on stations with existing proximity to areas of greatest ridership potential. The

variables utilized to examine the station area travel markets were distance from station (both for

existing and future years) and demographics, where each of these variables was assessed for both

commuter and intercity travel markets.

Distance was a variable used in assessing potential demand in station areas, with an emphasis on the

one mile catchment area for potential commuter travel demand and an emphasis on the five mile

catchment area for potential intercity travel demand.

Existing and future (2035) timeframes were utilized to assess potential ridership in proximity to station

areas, with preference given to existing conditions over the future planned conditions (known versus

anticipated conditions) for both commuter and intercity travel demand. The demographic analysis
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

29

utilized population and employment figures, with an emphasis on employment for both commuter and

intercity.

Using the weightings described above and defined in Table 17, all 38 stations were evaluated for each of

the market types (commuter or intercity), demographic variables (population or employment) and

catchment areas (one mile or five mile) and subsequently ranked. The rankings of stations by commuter,

intercity, one mile and five mile assessment is shown in Table 18 through Table 21. Using these station

rankings, quantitative values were then assigned for each of the demographic characteristics

commensurate with the ranking, which is described in Table 22, where 1 is the highest (best) ranking.

These quantitative values were then converted to a five-point scale for the overall station evaluation,

which is described in Section 3.3.

Table 17—Station Area Demographic Weighting

Variable Commuter Intercity

Distance Variable Weight Weight

One-mile catchment 65% 20%

Five-mile catchment 35% 80%

Time Period Weight Weight

Existing 60% 60%

Future (2035) 40% 40%

Metric Weight Weight

Population 35% 35%

Employment 65% 65%
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

30

Table 18—Commuter Station Rankings, One Mile Catchment Area

Name

Existing Future

Population Employment Population Employment

Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 9 3 8 2

Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 7 8 4 5

Downtown Chandler 13 17 9 11

S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 6 15 3 9

W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 6 21 4 14

Wild Horse Pass 1 12 1 8

Downtown Gilbert 11 20 8 13

Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 13 19 8 13

Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC85) 4 2 3 1

Downtown Mesa 13 23 9 15

LRT End Station (Mesa) 14 14 9 8

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 0 1 0 1

Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 12 14 8 10

Downtown Phoenix 12 25 6 17

PHX Sky Harbor 3 21 5 14

South Mountain Freeway 8 16 7 11

Downtown Queen Creek 6 7 5 7

Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 8 13 6 9

Downtown Tempe / ASU 11 23 7 16

Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 5 11 0 0

Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 4 10 2 7

Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 1 3 1 2

Oro Valley 4 5 2 4

Amtrak Tucson Station 10 25 6 16

Raytheon 1 6 1 4

Tucson Historic Depot 10 24 6 15

Tucson International Airport 2 18 1 12

University of Arizona 11 22 7 15

University of Arizona Research Center 3 18 3 12

Downtown Apache Junction 8 10 5 6

Downtown Casa Grande 9 16 5 10

Central Arizona College 3 4 2 3

Downtown Coolidge 7 9 4 5

Downtown Eloy 7 5 4 3

Downtown Florence 5 12 3 8

Downtown Maricopa 10 8 7 6

Downtown Sacaton 2 1 2 0

Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 0 0 0 0
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

31

Table 19—Commuter Station Rankings, Five Mile Catchment Area

Name

Existing Future

Population Employment Population Employment

Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 4 7 3 5

Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 2 4 1 2

Downtown Chandler 5 10 4 6

S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 5 9 3 6

W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 4 10 3 7

Wild Horse Pass 4 8 2 5

Downtown Gilbert 7 11 5 7

Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 7 11 5 7

Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC85) 3 5 2 3

Downtown Mesa 7 11 5 8

LRT End Station (Mesa) 7 10 4 7

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 3 5 2 3

Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 6 9 4 6

Downtown Phoenix 7 14 4 9

PHX Sky Harbor 6 13 4 9

South Mountain Freeway 6 8 4 6

Downtown Queen Creek 3 4 2 3

Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 5 7 3 4

Downtown Tempe / ASU 6 13 4 9

Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 0 2 0 0

Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 1 3 0 2

Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 2 3 1 2

Oro Valley 2 4 1 3

Amtrak Tucson Station 6 12 4 8

Raytheon 4 7 2 5

Tucson Historic Depot 5 12 3 8

Tucson International Airport 4 8 3 5

University of Arizona 5 13 3 8

University of Arizona Research Center 2 6 1 4

Downtown Apache Junction 3 6 2 4

Downtown Casa Grande 3 6 2 4

Central Arizona College 1 1 1 1

Downtown Coolidge 1 1 1 1

Downtown Eloy 1 1 1 1

Downtown Florence 1 3 0 2

Downtown Maricopa 2 2 1 1

Downtown Sacaton 0 0 0 0

Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 0 0 0 0
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

32

Table 20—Intercity Station Rankings, One Mile Catchment Area

Name

Existing Future

Population Employment Population Employment

Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 3 1 2 1

Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 2 2 1 2

Downtown Chandler 4 5 3 3

S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 2 5 1 3

W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 2 6 1 4

Wild Horse Pass 0 4 0 2

Downtown Gilbert 4 6 2 4

Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 4 6 3 4

Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC85) 1 1 1 0

Downtown Mesa 4 7 3 5

LRT End Station (Mesa) 4 4 3 3

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 0 0 0 0

Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 4 4 2 3

Downtown Phoenix 4 8 2 5

PHX Sky Harbor 1 7 1 4

South Mountain Freeway 2 5 2 3

Downtown Queen Creek 2 2 1 2

Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 2 4 2 3

Downtown Tempe / ASU 3 7 2 5

Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 1 3 0 0

Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 1 3 1 2

Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 0 1 0 1

Oro Valley 1 2 1 1

Amtrak Tucson Station 3 8 2 5

Raytheon 0 2 0 1

Tucson Historic Depot 3 7 2 5

Tucson International Airport 1 6 0 4

University of Arizona 3 7 2 4

University of Arizona Research Center 1 5 1 4

Downtown Apache Junction 3 3 2 2

Downtown Casa Grande 3 5 2 3

Central Arizona College 1 1 1 1

Downtown Coolidge 2 3 1 1

Downtown Eloy 2 1 1 1

Downtown Florence 2 4 1 2

Downtown Maricopa 3 3 2 2

Downtown Sacaton 1 0 0 0

Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 0 0 0 0
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

33

Table 21—Intercity Station Rankings, Five Mile Catchment Area

Name

Existing Future

Population Employment Population Employment

Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 10 17 6 11

Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 5 8 3 5

Downtown Chandler 11 22 8 14

S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 11 20 7 14

W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 10 23 7 15

Wild Horse Pass 9 19 5 12

Downtown Gilbert 16 24 11 16

Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 17 25 11 17

Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC85) 6 11 4 6

Downtown Mesa 15 26 11 17

LRT End Station (Mesa) 15 24 10 16

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 7 12 6 8

Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 13 21 9 13

Downtown Phoenix 16 31 10 20

PHX Sky Harbor 14 30 9 21

South Mountain Freeway 15 19 10 13

Downtown Queen Creek 7 9 4 7

Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 10 15 7 10

Downtown Tempe / ASU 14 29 9 20

Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 0 5 0 0

Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 2 6 1 3

Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 4 8 2 5

Oro Valley 5 10 3 6

Amtrak Tucson Station 13 28 8 18

Raytheon 8 16 5 10

Tucson Historic Depot 12 27 7 18

Tucson International Airport 9 18 6 12

University of Arizona 12 29 8 19

University of Arizona Research Center 4 14 2 9

Downtown Apache Junction 8 13 5 9

Downtown Casa Grande 6 13 4 8

Central Arizona College 2 2 2 2

Downtown Coolidge 3 3 2 2

Downtown Eloy 3 3 1 1

Downtown Florence 1 7 0 4

Downtown Maricopa 5 4 3 3

Downtown Sacaton 0 1 0 1

Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 1 0 1 0
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

34

Table 22—Station Area Demographic Ranking

Commuter Intercity

Total Population within

Catchment Area (Rank) Value

Total Population within

Catchment Area (Rank) Value

Total Population within One Mile

< 7 3 < 7 3

7–10 2 7–10 2

> 10 1 > 10 1

Total Employment within One Mile

< 15 3 < 3 3

15–22 2 3–8 2

> 22 1 > 8 1

Total Population within Five Miles

< 5 3 < 8 3

5–8 2 8–14 2

> 8 1 > 14 1

Total Employment within Five Miles

< 8 3 < 10 3

8–15 2 10–25 2

> 15 1 > 25 1

3.2 Connections from the Station

Each potential station location was evaluated for transportation connections from the station area using

the five categories below to evaluate the range of transportation modes available:

• Transportation Connections: pedestrian, bicycle, and local street connections were measured

by an intersection count within a one-mile catchment area as a surrogate for urban density.

• Fixed Guideway Transit Connections: fixed guideway transit connections (existing, planned and

programmed) within the one-mile catchment area were identified for each potential station

location.

• Other Transit Connections: the number of non-fixed-guideway transit connections was

identified within the catchment areas.

• Freeway Connections: freeway connections were identified within the catchment areas for

commuter rail and the distance from the centroid of the potential station location to the nearest

freeway was measured for intercity rail.

• Airport Connections: a straight-line distance from the centroid of the station location to the

nearest commercial aviation passenger terminal was measured.

The evaluation of the commuter station area emphasized the transit and transportation connections

while the intercity station area evaluation emphasized the freeway and airport connections. Using the

measurement variables and weightings described above and defined in Table 23, all 38 stations were

evaluated and ranked. Quantitative values were then assigned for each of the measurement variables
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

35

commensurate with the weighting, as described in Table 24. These quantitative values were then

converted to a five-point scale for the overall station evaluation, which is described in Section 3.3.

Table 23—Station Area Transportation Connections Weighting

Distance Variable

Commuter Intercity

Weight

Percentage Weight

Weight

Percentage Weight

Freeway Connections 13% 1.0 33% 4.0

Airport Connections 13% 1.0 33% 4.0

Fixed Transit Connections 25% 2.0 17% 2.0

Other Transit Connections 25% 2.0 17% 2.0

Pedestrian, Bicycle and Local

Street Connections

25% 2.0 0% 0.0

Table 24—Station Area Connections Ranking

Commuter Intercity

Total Connections within

One-Mile (Count) Value

Total Connections within

One-Mile (Rank) Value

Freeway Connections

> 1 3 < 3 3

3–10 2

< 1 1 > 10 1

Airport Connections

< 8 3 < 1 3

8–24 2 1–5 2

> 1 > 5 1

Fixed-Guideway Transit Connections

> 1 3 > 1 3

< 1 1 < 1 1

Other Transit Connections

> 10 3 > 6 3

10–6 2 6–3 2

< 6 1 < 3 1

Pedestrian, Bicycle and Local Street Connections

> 327 3 > 150 3

327–216 2 150–100 2

< 216 1 < 100 1

3.3 Station Location Weighting

Each measurement category and subcategory was assigned a weight consistent with the significance of

the measurements based on input from scoping. These weights were applied to the measurements

presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and are summarized in Table 25.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

36

Table 25—Station Area Weighting

Measurement

Category Weight %

Demographic 4.0 44.4%

Connections 5.0 55.6%

TOTAL 9 100.0%

3.4 Station Location Screening Results

Table 26 and Table 27 provide a summary of the 38 potential stations that were evaluated for commuter

and intercity service based on the measurement criteria described in the previous sections. In these

tables, the potential stations are ranked in descending order beginning with the highest ranking stations.

The rating for the travel markets and connections criteria are included, each rated on a five-point scale

based on the weightings described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. The rating, on a ten-point scale, is the basis

for the overall ranking. The highest ranked stations are those that would be more desirable to bundle

with alignments to create a complete alignment.

Figure 1 through Figure 38 of the Appendix detail the complete description of the station locations.
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

37

Table 26—Commuter Potential Station Location Ranking

County Name

Travel

Markets Connections Overall Rank

Maricopa Downtown Phoenix 5.0 5.0 10.0 1

Pima Tucson Historic Depot 5.0 5.0 10.0 1

Pima Tucson Convention Center 5.0 5.0 10.0 1

Maricopa Downtown Tempe / ASU 5.0 4.4 9.4 4

Pima University of Arizona 5.0 4.1 9.1 5

Maricopa LRT End Station West (West Valley) 4.4 4.1 8.5 6

Maricopa Downtown Mesa 5.0 3.4 8.4 7

Maricopa LRT End Station East (Mesa) 5.0 3.4 8.4 7

Maricopa Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 5.0 2.8 7.8 9

Maricopa Phoenix Sky Harbor 4.4 3.1 7.5 10

Maricopa Downtown Chandler 5.0 2.2 7.2 11

Maricopa Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 5.0 2.2 7.2 11

Maricopa Downtown Gilbert 5.0 0.9 5.9 13

Maricopa W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 4.4 0.9 5.3 14

Maricopa Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 3.8 1.3 5.1 15

Pinal Downtown Casa Grande 3.1 1.3 4.4 16

Maricopa Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 2.5 1.6 4.1 17

Maricopa S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 3.1 0.9 4.0 18

Pima Tucson International Airport 2.5 1.3 3.8 19

Pinal Downtown Apache Junction 3.1 0.3 3.4 20

Pinal Downtown Coolidge 1.3 1.6 2.9 21

Maricopa Wild Horse Pass 1.9 0.9 2.8 22

Pima University of Arizona Research Center 1.9 0.9 2.8 22

Maricopa Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Maricopa Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Maricopa Downtown Queen Creek 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Pima Raytheon 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Pinal Downtown Eloy 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Pinal Downtown Florence 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Pinal Downtown Maricopa 1.3 0.6 1.9 24

Pima Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 0.0 1.6 1.6 31

Pima Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 0.6 0.6 1.2 32

Pima Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 0.0 0.6 0.6 33

Pima Oro Valley 0.0 0.3 0.3 34

Pinal Downtown Sacaton 0.0 0.3 0.3 34

Pinal Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 0.0 0.3 0.3 34

Maricopa Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC 85) 0.0 0.0 0.0 37

Pinal Central Arizona College 0.0 0.0 0.0 37
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

38

Table 27—Intercity Potential Station Location Ranking

County Name

Travel

Markets Connections Overall Rank

Maricopa PHX Sky Harbor 3.8 2.1 10.0 1

Maricopa Downtown Phoenix 2.5 1.3 9.2 2

Maricopa Downtown Tempe / ASU 5.0 2.5 9.2 2

Maricopa Downtown Mesa 4.4 1.7 8.3 4

Maricopa LRT End Station West (West Valley) 5.0 2.1 8.3 4

Pima Amtrak Tucson Station 2.5 1.7 8.3 4

Pima Tucson Historic Depot 5.0 2.1 8.3 4

Pima University of Arizona 5.0 1.7 8.3 4

Pima Tucson International Airport 2.5 0.8 8.0 9

Maricopa LRT End Station East (Mesa) 5.0 3.3 7.7 10

Maricopa Downtown Chandler 4.4 3.3 7.5 11

Maricopa W. Chandler Blvd. CDB 1.3 3.3 7.1 12

Maricopa Downtown Gilbert 4.4 2.1 7.1 12

Maricopa Glendale (Grand Ave / 59th Ave) 5.0 4.2 6.7 14

Maricopa Peoria (Grand Ave / 83rd Ave) 5.0 5.0 6.5 15

Pima Raytheon 5.0 3.3 6.3 16

Maricopa S. Price Corridor—Hi Tech Center 3.1 1.7 6.1 17

Maricopa Avondale (Avondale Blvd / Buckeye Rd) 3.8 0.8 5.9 18

Maricopa Downtown Queen Creek 5.0 4.2 4.8 19

Pinal Downtown Apache Junction 1.3 2.5 4.8 19

Maricopa Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport 1.9 1.7 4.6 21

Maricopa Surprise (Grand Ave / Bell Rd) 0.6 1.7 4.6 21

Pinal Downtown Casa Grande 1.9 1.3 4.6 21

Maricopa Wild Horse Pass 5.0 3.3 4.2 24

Pima University of Arizona Research Center 2.5 3.8 4.2 24

Maricopa Buckeye (Miller Rd / Baseline Rd) 5.0 3.3 3.8 26

Pima Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 3.8 4.2 3.8 26

Pima Marana (Marana Rd / Sandario Rd) 5.0 3.3 3.6 28

Maricopa Goodyear (Cotton Lane / MC 85) 2.5 1.7 3.3 29

Pima Oro Valley 3.1 1.7 3.2 30

Pinal Downtown Eloy 3.8 0.8 3.0 31

Pinal Downtown Coolidge 0.6 1.7 2.7 32

Pinal Downtown Florence 1.9 0.8 2.5 33

Pinal Downtown Maricopa 1.3 1.7 2.5 33

Pima Marana (Tangerine Rd / I-10) 2.5 0.0 2.3 35

Pinal Central Arizona College 2.5 0.0 2.3 35

Pinal Downtown Sacaton 0.6 0.8 1.4 37

Pinal Superstition Vistas (Future Activity Center) 0.0 0.0 0.0 38
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

39

4.0 Modes

Four transportation modes were examined to connect the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas: bus,

rail, highway (auto) and air. Personal auto was not carried forward as a mode in this analysis because it

has been and is being addressed as part of a number of other studies within the region. The

characteristics and feasibility of bus, rail and air modes are described below.

4.1 Bus

• Average Cost per Mile2: $0.92

• CO2 Emissions: 56 g/pass-mile

• Energy Use : 749 BTU/pass-mile

• Implementation Status: No current plans for exclusive right-of-way for buses between Tucson

and Phoenix. There is existing bus service on I-10.

• Potential Service Characteristics: Opportunity for stations in many intermediate communities

between Tucson and Phoenix, offering a range of connection options.

4.2 Rail

• Average Cost per Mile: $0.63

• CO2 Emissions: 160 g/pass-mile

• Energy Use: 1850 BTU/pass-mile

• Implementation Status: Rail connection between Tucson and Phoenix identified in State Rail

Plan.

• Potential Service Characteristics: Opportunity for stations in a limited number of communities

between Tucson and Phoenix.

4.3 Air

• Average Cost per Mile: $16.13

• CO2 Emissions: 243 g/pass-mile

• Energy Use: 3260 BTU/pass-mile

• Implementation Status: No current plans for expansion of air service between Tucson and

Phoenix.

• Potential Service Characteristics: Limited to stations in Tucson and Phoenix.

Due to the cost and limited service characteristics of air, only the bus and rail modes were advanced for

further consideration.

2

 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2011
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary

40

5.0 Summary

The range of alternatives (ROA) process introduced all reasonable route alignments and system hub

station locations that have been evaluated as part of the APRCS study process. The information from the

ROA process is utilized in the initial screening of alignments and provided a fatal flaw and/or risk

assessment to help select choices that best meet the project Purpose and Need.

Throughout the initial screening process, the evaluation methodology established an appropriate level

of analysis to identify a set of complete corridor alternatives. The screening criteria relied as much as

possible upon quantitative measures, with minimal use of qualitative assessments. Qualitative

assessments were made to establish a tiered ranking of the measurements and included the input of the

public, agencies and professionals with pertinent expertise.

A complete corridor alternative comprises three elements that were assessed independently in the

initial screening:

1. Alignment

2. Stations Locations (including Terminal Stations, Regional Stations, and Local Stations)

3. Service Type (mode, connections)

The initial screening is reflected in subsequent sections of the Range of Alternatives Technical

Memorandum which details complete corridor alternatives.
Passenger Rail Corridor Study

Tucson to Phoenix

INITIAL SCREENING REPORT

LEVEL ONE RESULTS

APPENDIX

Submitted by:

Arizona Department of Transportation

Multimodal Planning Division

206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 310B

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Submitted to:

Federal Transit Administration

Federal Rail Administration

Version 5.0 | November 20, 2012

Version 4.0 | September 26, 2012

Version 3.0 | September 5, 2012

Version 2.0 | July 16, 2012

Version 1.0 | June 28, 2012
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

i

Tables

Table 1A—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number................................... 1

Table 1B—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 2

Table 1C—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 3

Table 1D—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 4

Table 1E—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 5

Table 1F—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 6

Table 1G—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 7

Table 1H—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 8

Table 1I—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................. 9

Table 1J—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ............... 10

Table 1K—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) .............. 11

Table 1L—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) .............. 12

Table 1M—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ................ 13

Table 1N—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued).............. 14

Table 1O—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ............. 15

Table 1P—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) .............. 16

Table 1Q—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) ............. 17

Table 1R—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued) .............. 18

Table 2A—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative .............................................. 19

Table 2B—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ........................... 20

Table 2C—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ........................... 21

Table 2D—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) .......................... 22

Table 3A—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative................................ 23

Table 3B—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)............. 24

Table 3C—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ............. 25

Table 3D—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ............ 26

Table 4A—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative ................................................................ 27

Table 4B—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ............................................. 28

Table 4C—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ............................................. 29

Table 4D—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)............................................. 30

Table 5A—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative ......................................................... 31

Table 5B—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ...................................... 32

Table 5C—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ...................................... 33

Table 5D—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)...................................... 34

Table 6A—Length by Alignment Alternative .......................................................................................................... 35

Table 6B—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ....................................................................................... 36

Table 6C—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ....................................................................................... 37

Table 6D—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued) ...................................................................................... 38
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

ii

Figures

Figure 1—Marana (Ina Rd) Station Location .......................................................................................................... 39

Figure 2—Marana (Marana Rd) Station Location ................................................................................................... 40

Figure 3—Marana (Tangerine Road) Station Location ........................................................................................... 40

Figure 4—Oro Valley Station Location ................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 5—Raytheon Station Location .................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 6—Tucson Convention Center Station Location .......................................................................................... 42

Figure 7—Tucson Historic Depot Station Location ................................................................................................. 42

Figure 8—Tucson International Airport Station Location ....................................................................................... 43

Figure 9—University of Arizona Station Location ................................................................................................... 43

Figure 10—U of A Research Park Station Location ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 11—Apache Junction Station Location........................................................................................................ 45

Figure 12—Casa Grande Station Location ............................................................................................................. 45

Figure 13—Central Arizona College Station Location ............................................................................................. 46

Figure 14—Coolidge Station Location ................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 15—Eloy Station Location .......................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 16—Florence Station Location ................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 17—Maricopa Station Location .................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 18—Sacaton Station Location..................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 19—Superstition Vistas Station Location .................................................................................................... 49

Figure 20—Avondale Station Location .................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 21—Buckeye Station Location .................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 22—Downtown Chandler Station Location ................................................................................................. 51

Figure 23—S. Price Hi-Tech Corridor Station Location ........................................................................................... 51

Figure 24—W. Chandler Blvd Station Location ...................................................................................................... 52

Figure 25—Wild Horse Pass Station Location ........................................................................................................ 52

Figure 26—Downtown Gilbert Station Location .................................................................................................... 53

Figure 27—Glendale Station Location ................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 28—Goodyear Station Location .................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 29—Mesa Station Location ........................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 30—LRT End Station East Station Location.................................................................................................. 55

Figure 31—Phoenix Mesa Gateway Station Location ............................................................................................. 55

Figure 32—Peoria Station Location ....................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 33—Downtown Phoenix Station Location ................................................................................................... 56

Figure 34—Phoenix Sky Harbor Station Location ................................................................................................... 57

Figure 35—LRT End Station West Station Location ................................................................................................ 57

Figure 36—Queen Creek Station Location ............................................................................................................. 58

Figure 37—Surprise Station Location .................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 38—Tempe ASU Station Location ............................................................................................................... 59
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-1

Table 1A—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9

3 16.1 4.0

4 17.2 4.4

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4 x x x x x x x x

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8 x x x x x x

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7 x x

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

175.0 155.7 179.9 160.6 185.7 166.4 184.9 165.6

Total Area 697.6 621.5 716.6 640.5 737.2 661.1 734.8 658.8

Total Distance

Alignment ID
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-2

Table 1B—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8

1 111.5 28.7 x x x x x x x x

2 23.3 5.9

3 16.1 4.0

4 17.2 4.4

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8 x x x x x x x x

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8 x x x x x x

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7 x x

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

154.1 134.8 159.0 139.7 164.8 145.4 164.0 144.7

611.5 535.5 630.5 554.4 651.1 575.0 648.7 572.7

Total Distance

Total Area

Alignment ID
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-3

Table 1C—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8

1 111.5 28.7 x x x x x x

2 23.3 5.9 x x

3 16.1 4.0

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5 x x

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8 x x

15 53.1 13.9 x x x x x x

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x x x x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7 x x

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

147.4 128.1 153.2 133.9 152.4 133.1 143.2 123.9

582.7 506.6 603.2 527.2 600.9 524.8 570.2 494.2

Total Distance

Total Area

Alignment ID
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-4

Table 1D—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5 x x x x x x

12 29.7 7.4 x x

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8 x x x x x x x x

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8 x x x x x x

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7 x x

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

148.1 128.8 153.8 134.5 153.1 133.8 145.0 125.7

589.2 513.1 609.8 533.7 607.4 531.4 577.9 501.8

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-5

Table 1E—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2 x x x x x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4 x x x x x x x x

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8 x x x x x x x x

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8 x x x x x x

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7 x x

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

149.9 130.6 155.6 136.3 154.9 135.6 144.6 125.3

596.9 520.8 617.4 541.4 615.1 539.1 574.5 498.5

Alignment ID

Total Area

Total Distance
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-6

Table 1F—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x x x x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2

7 4.4 1.5 x x x x x x

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5 x x

12 29.7 7.4 x x x x x x

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8 x x x x x x

15 53.1 13.9 x x

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x

27 38.7 9.8 x x x x x x

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8 x x x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

149.5 130.2 155.3 135.9 154.5 135.2 136.5 117.2

593.5 517.5 614.1 538.0 611.7 535.7 541.3 465.3

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-7

Table 1G—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 G-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2 x x x x

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5 x x x x

12 29.7 7.4 x x x x

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9 x x x x x x x x

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x x x x x x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

142.3 122.9 141.5 122.2 138.3 119.0 144.1 124.8

561.9 485.9 559.6 483.5 549.0 473.0 569.6 493.6

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-8

Table 1H—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x x x x

8 25.2 6.1

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4 x x x x x x x x

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9 x x x x x x x x

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x x x x x x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

143.3 124.0 137.9 118.6 143.7 124.4 142.9 123.6

567.3 491.2 545.7 469.6 566.2 490.2 563.9 487.9

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-9

Table 1I—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4

5 32.4 8.3 x x x x x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5

8 25.2 6.1 x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2 x x x x x x x x

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8 x x x x x x x x

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x x x x x x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8 x x x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

142.1 122.7 147.8 128.5 147.1 127.8 142.0 122.7

565.0 488.9 585.6 509.5 583.2 507.2 566.7 490.7

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-10

Table 1J—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) J-1 J-2 J-3 J-4 J-5 J-6 J-7 J-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x

5 32.4 8.3

6 8.9 2.2 x x x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2 x x x x x x x x

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8 x x x x x x x x

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x x x x x x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x x x x x

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8 x x

33 51.8 12.5 x x

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

147.8 128.5 147.1 127.7 141.7 122.3 147.4 128.1

587.3 511.2 585.0 508.9 563.4 487.3 583.9 507.9

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-11

Table 1K—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) K-1 K-2 K-3 K-4 K-5 K-6 K-7 K-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2 x x x x x x x x

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8 x x

21 103.4 25.1 x x x x x x

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1 x x

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6 x x

29 15.4 3.9 x x x x x x

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

146.7 127.4 145.3 126.0 144.6 125.3 145.3 126.0

581.6 505.5 578.6 502.6 576.3 500.2 580.4 504.3

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-12

Table 1L—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2 x x x x x x

17 104.8 26.4 x x

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1 x x x x x x

22 35.9 9.1 x x

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9 x x x x x x x x

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

144.6 125.3 144.9 125.6 144.2 124.9 143.5 124.1

578.0 502.0 577.0 501.0 574.7 498.6 569.5 493.4

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-13

Table 1M—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number (continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 M-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4 x x x x x x x x

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1 x x x x x x x x

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9 x x x x x x x x

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

142.7 123.4 143.4 124.1 142.7 123.4 143.1 123.7

567.1 491.1 571.2 495.2 568.9 492.8 567.9 491.8

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-14

Table 1N—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) N-1 N-2 N-3 N-4 N-5 N-6 N-7 N-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x

9 92.1 23.6 x x x x x x

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4 x x

18 64.1 16.1 x x x x x x

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1 x x

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3 x x x x x x

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9 x x

30 75.9 31.0

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4 x x x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

142.3 123.0 153.1 133.8 152.4 133.1 153.1 133.8

565.5 489.5 606.8 530.8 604.5 528.4 608.6 532.5

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-15

Table 1O—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x x

5 32.4 8.3 x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6 x x x x x x x

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1 x x x x x x x

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3 x x x x x x

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0 x

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4 x x

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x

36 12.0 3.1 x x

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8 x

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x

152.4 133.1 152.7 133.4 152.0 132.7 161.7

606.2 530.2 605.2 529.1 602.9 526.8 593.9

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-16

Table 1P—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) Q-1 Q-3 Q-6 Q-7 R-2 R-4 R-5 R-7

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6 x x x x x x x x

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4

18 64.1 16.1 x x x x x x x x

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0 x x x x x x x x

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4

35 71.2 17.8

36 12.0 3.1

37 73.2 18.3

38 95.1 23.8 x x x x x

39 202.8 50.6 x x x

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

142.4 144.1 161.7 142.4 144.1 161.3 142.0 143.7

517.8 524.3 595.6 519.5 526.1 592.2 516.2 522.7

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-17

Table 1Q—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Continues next page

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4 x x x x x x x x

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4 x x x x x x x x

24 37.3 9.3 x x x x x x

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0 x x

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4

35 71.2 17.8 x x x x x x

36 12.0 3.1

37 73.2 18.3 x x x x x x

38 95.1 23.8 x x

39 202.8 50.6

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x x x x x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x x

144.5 144.5 144.1 125.2 125.2 124.8 153.8 153.8

574.7 576.4 573.0 498.6 500.4 497.0 564.1 565.8

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-18

Table 1R—Segments included per Alignment Corridor Alternative by Identification Number

(continued)

Segment

Number Seg Area

Length

(miles) T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7

1 111.5 28.7

2 23.3 5.9 x x x x x x x

3 16.1 4.0 x x x x

4 17.2 4.4 x x x

5 32.4 8.3 x x

6 8.9 2.2 x x

7 4.4 1.5 x x x

8 25.2 6.1 x x x x x

9 92.1 23.6

11 29.8 7.5

12 29.7 7.4

13 308.1 77.4

14 110.5 27.8

15 53.1 13.9

16 46.4 12.2

17 104.8 26.4 x x x x x x x

18 64.1 16.1

20 28.9 6.8

21 103.4 25.1

22 35.9 9.1

23 21.6 5.4 x x x x x x x

24 37.3 9.3

26 48.2 12.1

27 38.7 9.8

28 48.7 12.6

29 15.4 3.9

30 75.9 31.0 x x x x x x x

31 57.6 14.7

32 37.8 9.8

33 51.8 12.5

34 61.5 15.4

35 71.2 17.8

36 12.0 3.1

37 73.2 18.3

38 95.1 23.8 x x x x

39 202.8 50.6 x x x

40 15.5 3.9 x x x x

41 161.6 40.5 x

42 85.6 21.2 x x x

43 17.8 4.6 x x x x x x x

153.4 134.5 134.5 134.1 136.2 136.2 135.8

562.4 488.0 489.7 486.4 494.5 496.3 492.9

Alignment ID

Total Distance

Total Area
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-19

Table 2A—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

Continues next page

Alignment ID Percent Difficult Percent Involved Percent Manageable Overall

A-1 38% 0% 62%

A-2 17% 8% 75%

A-3 37% 0% 63%

A-4 16% 8% 76%

A-5 36% 8% 56%

A-6 16% 17% 67%

A-7 36% 0% 64%

A-8 16% 8% 76%

B-1 58% 0% 42%

B-2 36% 9% 54%

B-3 56% 0% 44%

B-4 35% 9% 56%

B-5 54% 9% 37%

B-6 33% 19% 47%

B-7 54% 0% 46%

B-8 34% 9% 58%

C-1 66% 0% 34%

C-2 44% 10% 46%

C-3 63% 10% 27%

C-4 42% 21% 37%

C-5 64% 0% 36%

C-6 43% 10% 48%

C-7 48% 6% 46%

C-8 23% 17% 60%

D-1 46% 6% 48%

D-2 22% 16% 62%

D-3 45% 15% 40%

D-4 21% 27% 52%

D-5 45% 5% 50%

D-6 21% 16% 63%

D-7 49% 0% 51%

D-8 25% 10% 65%

E-1 48% 0% 52%

E-2 24% 10% 66%

E-3 46% 10% 44%

E-4 23% 21% 57%

E-5 46% 0% 54%

E-6 23% 9% 68%

E-7 49% 1% 49%

E-8 25% 12% 64%

Overall Existing Transportation Operations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-20

Table 2B—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment ID Percent Difficult Percent Involved Percent Manageable Overall

F-1 48% 1% 51%

F-2 24% 11% 65%

F-3 46% 11% 43%

F-4 23% 22% 55%

F-5 46% 1% 52%

F-6 23% 11% 66%

F-7 56% 6% 38%

F-8 31% 18% 51%

G-1 54% 17% 29%

G-2 29% 30% 41%

G-3 54% 6% 40%

G-4 30% 17% 53%

G-5 58% 0% 42%

G-6 33% 11% 56%

G-7 55% 11% 34%

G-8 31% 23% 46%

H-1 56% 0% 44%

H-2 32% 10% 58%

H-3 58% 1% 41%

H-4 33% 12% 55%

H-5 55% 12% 33%

H-6 31% 24% 44%

H-7 56% 1% 43%

H-8 32% 12% 57%

I-1 50% 6% 44%

I-2 25% 17% 58%

I-3 48% 16% 36%

I-4 24% 28% 48%

I-5 48% 6% 46%

I-6 24% 17% 59%

I-7 54% 0% 46%

I-8 30% 10% 60%

J-1 52% 10% 37%

J-2 29% 22% 49%

J-3 53% 0% 47%

J-4 29% 10% 61%

J-5 55% 1% 44%

J-6 30% 12% 58%

J-7 52% 12% 36%

J-8 29% 24% 48%

Overall Existing Transportation Operations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-21

Table 2C—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment ID Percent Difficult Percent Involved Percent Manageable Overall

K-1 53% 1% 46%

K-2 29% 12% 60%

K-3 55% 19% 26%

K-4 31% 32% 37%

K-5 55% 8% 36%

K-6 32% 20% 48%

K-7 59% 13% 27%

K-8 36% 25% 38%

L-1 60% 3% 38%

L-2 36% 13% 50%

L-3 59% 15% 26%

L-4 36% 27% 37%

L-5 60% 4% 36%

L-6 36% 15% 49%

L-7 38% 44% 18%

L-8 12% 61% 27%

M-1 39% 33% 28%

M-2 12% 49% 39%

M-3 43% 38% 19%

M-4 17% 54% 29%

M-5 43% 28% 30%

M-6 17% 42% 41%

M-7 43% 40% 18%

M-8 17% 56% 27%

N-1 43% 29% 28%

N-2 17% 44% 39%

N-3 45% 15% 39%

N-4 22% 27% 51%

N-5 46% 5% 49%

N-6 22% 16% 62%

N-7 49% 10% 41%

N-8 26% 21% 53%

P-1 50% 0% 50%

P-2 26% 10% 64%

P-3 49% 11% 39%

P-4 26% 23% 51%

P-5 50% 1% 49%

P-6 26% 11% 63%

P-7 43% 5% 52%

Overall Existing Transportation Operations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-22

Table 2D—Existing Transportation Operations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Alignment ID Percent Difficult Percent Involved Percent Manageable Overall

Q-1 20% 15% 65%

Q-3 20% 6% 74%

Q-6 47% 0% 53%

Q-7 25% 9% 66%

R-2 24% 0% 76%

R-4 47% 1% 52%

R-5 25% 10% 65%

R-7 24% 1% 74%

S-1 38% 24% 38%

S-2 42% 18% 39%

S-3 42% 20% 38%

S-4 12% 38% 50%

S-5 16% 31% 52%

S-6 16% 33% 51%

S-7 36% 23% 42%

S-8 40% 17% 43%

T-1 40% 19% 42%

T-2 11% 35% 54%

T-3 15% 29% 56%

T-4 15% 31% 54%

T-5 11% 25% 64%

T-6 15% 19% 65%

T-7 15% 21% 64%

Overall Existing Transportation Operations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-23

Table 3A—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

Continues next page

Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential

A-1 45% 42% 13% 50

A-2 44% 42% 14% 90

A-3 45% 43% 13% 55

A-4 44% 43% 13% 95

A-5 39% 46% 16% 108

A-6 37% 46% 17% 148

A-7 39% 44% 17% 3

A-8 38% 44% 18% 43

B-1 47% 40% 13% 50

B-2 47% 40% 14% 90

B-3 46% 41% 12% 55

B-4 46% 41% 13% 95

B-5 40% 44% 16% 108

B-6 39% 45% 17% 148

B-7 40% 42% 18% 3

B-8 39% 42% 19% 43

C-1 39% 48% 14% 57

C-2 37% 48% 14% 97

C-3 32% 51% 17% 110

C-4 29% 52% 19% 150

C-5 32% 49% 19% 5

C-6 29% 50% 21% 45

C-7 46% 40% 14% 93

C-8 46% 39% 15% 133

D-1 46% 41% 13% 98

D-2 45% 40% 14% 138

D-3 39% 44% 17% 151

D-4 37% 44% 18% 191

D-5 39% 42% 19% 46

D-6 38% 42% 20% 86

D-7 46% 41% 14% 131

D-8 45% 40% 14% 171

E-1 45% 41% 13% 136

E-2 45% 41% 14% 176

E-3 38% 45% 17% 189

E-4 37% 45% 18% 229

E-5 39% 43% 19% 84

E-6 37% 43% 20% 124

E-7 46% 40% 14% 128

E-8 45% 40% 14% 168

Historic

Places

Rank

Infringement Upon Sensitive Environments

Infringement

Rank

National Register

of Historic Places

Alignment

ID

Infringement upon biological resources (Percentage of Area)
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-24

Table 3B—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

(Continued)

Continues next page

Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential

F-1 46% 41% 13% 133

F-2 45% 41% 14% 173

F-3 39% 45% 17% 186

F-4 37% 45% 18% 226

F-5 39% 43% 19% 81

F-6 37% 43% 20% 121

F-7 38% 48% 15% 100

F-8 36% 49% 16% 140

G-1 30% 51% 19% 153

G-2 27% 53% 20% 193

G-3 30% 49% 21% 48

G-4 27% 50% 22% 88

G-5 37% 49% 14% 138

G-6 35% 50% 15% 178

G-7 30% 52% 18% 191

G-8 27% 53% 20% 231

H-1 30% 50% 20% 86

H-2 27% 51% 22% 126

H-3 37% 48% 14% 135

H-4 35% 49% 15% 175

H-5 30% 52% 18% 188

H-6 27% 53% 20% 228

H-7 30% 50% 20% 83

H-8 27% 51% 22% 123

I-1 32% 53% 15% 371

I-2 30% 54% 16% 411

I-3 25% 56% 19% 424

I-4 22% 58% 20% 464

I-5 26% 54% 21% 319

I-6 22% 56% 22% 359

I-7 32% 53% 15% 232

I-8 30% 55% 16% 272

J-1 25% 56% 18% 285

J-2 22% 58% 20% 325

J-3 25% 54% 20% 180

J-4 22% 56% 22% 220

J-5 32% 53% 15% 229

J-6 30% 55% 16% 269

J-7 25% 56% 18% 282

J-8 22% 58% 20% 322

National Register

of Historic Places

Infringement

Rank

Infringement Upon Sensitive Environments

Alignment

ID

Infringement upon biological resources (Percentage of Area) Historic

Places
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-25

Table 3C—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

(Continued)

Continues next page

Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential

K-1 26% 54% 20% 177

K-2 22% 56% 22% 217

K-3 24% 56% 20% 430

K-4 21% 58% 22% 470

K-5 25% 54% 22% 325

K-6 21% 55% 24% 365

K-7 24% 56% 20% 291

K-8 21% 58% 21% 331

L-1 24% 54% 22% 186

L-2 21% 56% 24% 226

L-3 24% 56% 20% 288

L-4 21% 58% 21% 328

L-5 25% 54% 22% 183

L-6 21% 56% 24% 223

L-7 21% 58% 21% 376

L-8 17% 60% 23% 416

M-1 21% 55% 23% 271

M-2 17% 57% 26% 311

M-3 21% 58% 21% 237

M-4 17% 60% 23% 277

M-5 21% 56% 23% 132

M-6 17% 58% 25% 172

M-7 21% 58% 21% 234

M-8 17% 60% 23% 274

N-1 21% 56% 23% 129

N-2 17% 58% 25% 169

N-3 26% 52% 23% 403

N-4 22% 53% 25% 443

N-5 26% 50% 25% 298

N-6 22% 51% 27% 338

N-7 26% 52% 23% 264

N-8 22% 53% 25% 304

P-1 26% 50% 24% 159

P-2 22% 51% 27% 199

P-3 26% 52% 23% 261

P-4 22% 53% 25% 301

P-5 26% 50% 24% 156

P-6 22% 51% 27% 196

P-7 23% 50% 27% 292

Infringement Upon Sensitive Environments

Alignment

ID

Infringement upon biological resources (Percentage of Area) National Register

of Historic Places

Infringement

Rank

Historic

Places
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-26

Table 3D—Infringements Upon Sensitive Environments Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

(Continued)

Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential

Q-1 19% 51% 30% 332

Q-3 13% 44% 42% 289

Q-6 23% 50% 27% 153

Q-7 19% 51% 30% 193

R-2 13% 45% 42% 150

R-4 23% 50% 27% 150

R-5 19% 51% 30% 190

R-7 13% 44% 42% 147

S-1 21% 55% 24% 277

S-2 21% 55% 23% 138

S-3 21% 55% 23% 135

S-4 17% 57% 26% 317

S-5 17% 57% 26% 178

S-6 17% 57% 26% 175

S-7 18% 55% 26% 271

S-8 18% 56% 26% 132

T-1 18% 56% 26% 129

T-2 13% 57% 29% 311

T-3 13% 58% 29% 172

T-4 13% 58% 29% 169

T-5 7% 50% 42% 268

T-6 7% 51% 42% 129

T-7 7% 50% 42% 126

Infringement Upon Sensitive Environments

Alignment

ID

Infringement upon biological resources (Percentage of Area) National Register

of Historic Places

Infringement

Rank

Historic

Places
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-27

Table 4A—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

Continues next page

Existing

Residential

(sq miles)

Residential

Entitlements

(sq miles)

Existing

Employment

(sq miles)

Future

Residential

(sq miles)

Future

Employment

(sq miles)

A-1 12% 10% 8% 48% 20%

A-2 12% 11% 9% 56% 23%

A-3 12% 12% 8% 49% 19%

A-4 12% 14% 9% 57% 21%

A-5 11% 12% 7% 49% 20%

A-6 12% 13% 8% 56% 23%

A-7 11% 11% 7% 48% 21%

A-8 12% 12% 8% 56% 23%

B-1 11% 11% 8% 36% 18%

B-2 12% 12% 9% 44% 21%

B-3 11% 14% 8% 38% 18%

B-4 12% 16% 9% 46% 20%

B-5 11% 13% 7% 38% 19%

B-6 11% 15% 8% 45% 21%

B-7 11% 12% 7% 37% 20%

B-8 11% 14% 8% 45% 22%

C-1 11% 7% 8% 33% 17%

C-2 12% 8% 9% 40% 20%

C-3 11% 7% 7% 33% 18%

C-4 11% 8% 8% 40% 21%

C-5 11% 5% 7% 32% 19%

C-6 11% 6% 8% 39% 22%

C-7 12% 12% 10% 37% 20%

C-8 13% 13% 11% 45% 24%

D-1 12% 15% 9% 39% 19%

D-2 13% 17% 11% 47% 22%

D-3 11% 14% 9% 39% 21%

D-4 12% 16% 10% 47% 24%

D-5 11% 13% 9% 38% 22%

D-6 12% 15% 10% 46% 25%

D-7 12% 11% 10% 37% 20%

D-8 13% 13% 12% 45% 23%

E-1 12% 15% 10% 39% 19%

E-2 13% 17% 11% 47% 22%

E-3 12% 14% 9% 39% 20%

E-4 13% 16% 10% 47% 23%

E-5 12% 13% 9% 38% 21%

E-6 13% 14% 10% 46% 24%

E-7 12% 12% 10% 37% 20%

E-8 13% 13% 12% 45% 24%

Existing or entitled residential and

employment land uses

Future residential or

employment land uses

Alignment ID Overall

land use

rank

Existing

land use

rank

Future

land use

rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-28

Table 4B—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Existing

Residential

(sq miles)

Residential

Entitlements

(sq miles)

Existing

Employment

(sq miles)

Future

Residential

(sq miles)

Future

Employment

(sq miles)

F-1 12% 15% 10% 39% 19%

F-2 13% 17% 11% 48% 22%

F-3 12% 14% 9% 39% 21%

F-4 13% 16% 10% 47% 24%

F-5 12% 13% 9% 38% 22%

F-6 13% 14% 10% 46% 25%

F-7 12% 8% 10% 33% 19%

F-8 13% 9% 11% 41% 22%

G-1 11% 7% 9% 33% 20%

G-2 12% 8% 11% 41% 24%

G-3 11% 6% 9% 32% 21%

G-4 12% 7% 11% 40% 25%

G-5 13% 8% 10% 33% 19%

G-6 14% 9% 12% 42% 22%

G-7 12% 7% 10% 33% 20%

G-8 13% 8% 11% 41% 24%

H-1 12% 6% 10% 33% 21%

H-2 13% 7% 11% 40% 25%

H-3 13% 8% 10% 33% 19%

H-4 14% 9% 11% 42% 22%

H-5 12% 7% 9% 33% 21%

H-6 13% 8% 11% 41% 24%

H-7 12% 6% 9% 33% 22%

H-8 13% 7% 11% 40% 25%

I-1 17% 7% 11% 37% 19%

I-2 19% 9% 13% 45% 22%

I-3 16% 7% 11% 37% 20%

I-4 18% 8% 12% 45% 24%

I-5 16% 6% 11% 36% 21%

I-6 18% 6% 12% 44% 25%

I-7 17% 7% 11% 37% 19%

I-8 19% 9% 13% 45% 22%

J-1 16% 7% 10% 37% 20%

J-2 18% 8% 12% 45% 23%

J-3 16% 6% 10% 36% 21%

J-4 18% 6% 12% 44% 25%

J-5 17% 7% 11% 37% 19%

J-6 19% 9% 12% 46% 22%

J-7 16% 7% 10% 37% 21%

J-8 18% 8% 12% 45% 24%

Overall

land use

rank

Alignment ID Existing or entitled residential and

employment land uses

Future residential or

employment land uses

Existing

land use

rank

Future

land use

rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-29

Table 4C—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Existing

Residential

(sq miles)

Residential

Entitlements

(sq miles)

Existing

Employment

(sq miles)

Future

Residential

(sq miles)

Future

Employment

(sq miles)

K-1 16% 6% 10% 36% 22%

K-2 18% 6% 12% 44% 25%

K-3 16% 5% 11% 33% 20%

K-4 17% 6% 12% 41% 23%

K-5 16% 4% 11% 32% 21%

K-6 17% 4% 12% 40% 24%

K-7 16% 5% 11% 33% 19%

K-8 18% 6% 12% 41% 23%

L-1 16% 4% 11% 32% 20%

L-2 18% 4% 12% 40% 24%

L-3 16% 5% 11% 33% 20%

L-4 18% 6% 12% 41% 23%

L-5 16% 4% 11% 33% 21%

L-6 18% 4% 12% 40% 24%

L-7 18% 9% 12% 42% 23%

L-8 20% 10% 13% 51% 27%

M-1 18% 8% 12% 41% 24%

M-2 20% 9% 13% 51% 28%

M-3 18% 9% 12% 42% 23%

M-4 20% 10% 13% 52% 27%

M-5 18% 8% 12% 42% 24%

M-6 20% 9% 13% 51% 28%

M-7 18% 9% 11% 43% 23%

M-8 20% 10% 13% 52% 27%

N-1 18% 8% 12% 42% 24%

N-2 20% 9% 13% 51% 28%

N-3 16% 8% 10% 47% 21%

N-4 18% 9% 12% 57% 25%

N-5 17% 7% 10% 47% 22%

N-6 18% 8% 12% 56% 26%

N-7 17% 8% 10% 47% 21%

N-8 18% 9% 12% 57% 24%

P-1 17% 7% 10% 47% 22%

P-2 19% 8% 12% 56% 25%

P-3 17% 8% 10% 48% 21%

P-4 18% 9% 12% 57% 25%

P-5 17% 7% 10% 47% 22%

P-6 18% 8% 12% 56% 26%

P-7 17% 5% 10% 49% 15%

Alignment ID Existing or entitled residential and

employment land uses

Future residential or

employment land uses

Existing

land use

rank

Future

land use

rank

Overall

land use

rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-30

Table 4D—Land Use Compatibility Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Existing

Residential

(sq miles)

Residential

Entitlements

(sq miles)

Existing

Employment

(sq miles)

Future

Residential

(sq miles)

Future

Employment

(sq miles)

Q-1 19% 5% 12% 58% 18%

Q-3 20% 6% 11% 61% 14%

Q-6 18% 5% 10% 49% 15%

Q-7 19% 5% 12% 59% 17%

R-2 20% 5% 11% 62% 13%

R-4 18% 5% 10% 49% 15%

R-5 19% 5% 11% 59% 18%

R-7 20% 6% 11% 62% 14%

S-1 18% 9% 11% 42% 25%

S-2 18% 9% 11% 43% 24%

S-3 18% 9% 11% 43% 25%

S-4 19% 11% 13% 52% 29%

S-5 20% 11% 13% 52% 28%

S-6 20% 11% 13% 52% 29%

S-7 18% 7% 11% 45% 17%

S-8 19% 7% 11% 45% 17%

T-1 19% 7% 11% 45% 17%

T-2 20% 8% 13% 54% 20%

T-3 21% 8% 13% 55% 20%

T-4 21% 8% 13% 55% 20%

T-5 21% 8% 13% 57% 16%

T-6 22% 8% 13% 58% 16%

T-7 22% 8% 12% 58% 16%

Overall

land use

rank

Alignment ID Existing or entitled residential and

employment land uses

Future residential or

employment land uses

Existing

land use

rank

Future

land use

rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-31

Table 5A—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative

Continues next page

Alignment

ID

Area in or near

National

Protected Lands

Area in or

near Tribal

Lands

Area in or

near Parks

Area in or

near Federal

Lands

Area in or

near State

Trust Lands

Institutional

Rank

A-1 2% 2% 4% 9% 17%

A-2 1% 0% 4% 8% 16%

A-3 2% 2% 4% 9% 17%

A-4 1% 0% 4% 8% 16%

A-5 2% 2% 3% 9% 18%

A-6 1% 0% 4% 8% 17%

A-7 2% 2% 3% 9% 19%

A-8 1% 0% 4% 8% 18%

B-1 1% 19% 3% 3% 17%

B-2 0% 19% 4% 1% 15%

B-3 1% 18% 3% 3% 17%

B-4 0% 19% 4% 1% 16%

B-5 1% 18% 3% 3% 18%

B-6 0% 18% 3% 1% 17%

B-7 1% 18% 3% 3% 18%

B-8 0% 18% 4% 1% 18%

C-1 1% 24% 3% 3% 17%

C-2 0% 25% 4% 1% 16%

C-3 1% 24% 3% 3% 18%

C-4 0% 25% 4% 1% 17%

C-5 1% 24% 3% 3% 19%

C-6 0% 25% 4% 1% 18%

C-7 1% 14% 3% 3% 18%

C-8 0% 14% 4% 1% 17%

D-1 1% 14% 3% 3% 18%

D-2 0% 13% 4% 1% 17%

D-3 1% 14% 3% 3% 19%

D-4 0% 13% 4% 1% 18%

D-5 1% 14% 3% 3% 20%

D-6 0% 13% 4% 1% 19%

D-7 1% 14% 3% 3% 17%

D-8 0% 13% 4% 1% 16%

E-1 1% 13% 3% 3% 18%

E-2 0% 13% 4% 1% 17%

E-3 1% 13% 3% 3% 18%

E-4 0% 13% 4% 1% 18%

E-5 1% 13% 3% 3% 19%

E-6 0% 13% 4% 1% 19%

E-7 1% 14% 3% 3% 18%

E-8 0% 14% 3% 1% 16%

Institutional Considerations
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-32

Table 5B—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment

ID

Area in or near

National

Protected Lands

Area in or

near Tribal

Lands

Area in or

near Parks

Area in or

near Federal

Lands

Area in or

near State

Trust Lands

Institutional

Rank

F-1 1% 13% 3% 3% 18%

F-2 0% 13% 3% 1% 17%

F-3 1% 13% 3% 3% 19%

F-4 0% 13% 3% 1% 18%

F-5 1% 14% 3% 3% 20%

F-6 0% 13% 3% 1% 19%

F-7 1% 19% 3% 3% 19%

F-8 0% 20% 4% 1% 18%

G-1 1% 19% 3% 3% 19%

G-2 0% 20% 4% 1% 18%

G-3 1% 19% 3% 3% 20%

G-4 0% 20% 4% 1% 20%

G-5 1% 19% 3% 3% 18%

G-6 0% 20% 4% 1% 17%

G-7 1% 19% 3% 3% 19%

G-8 0% 19% 4% 1% 18%

H-1 1% 19% 3% 3% 20%

H-2 0% 19% 4% 1% 19%

H-3 1% 19% 3% 3% 19%

H-4 0% 20% 4% 1% 18%

H-5 1% 19% 3% 3% 19%

H-6 0% 19% 4% 1% 18%

H-7 1% 19% 3% 3% 20%

H-8 0% 20% 4% 1% 19%

I-1 1% 14% 3% 3% 18%

I-2 0% 13% 4% 1% 17%

I-3 1% 14% 3% 3% 19%

I-4 0% 13% 4% 1% 18%

I-5 1% 14% 3% 3% 20%

I-6 0% 13% 4% 1% 19%

I-7 1% 13% 3% 3% 18%

I-8 0% 13% 4% 1% 17%

J-1 1% 13% 3% 3% 19%

J-2 0% 13% 4% 1% 18%

J-3 1% 13% 3% 3% 20%

J-4 0% 13% 4% 1% 19%

J-5 1% 13% 3% 3% 18%

J-6 0% 13% 4% 1% 17%

J-7 1% 13% 3% 3% 19%

J-8 0% 13% 3% 1% 18%
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-33

Table 5C—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment

ID

Area in or near

National

Protected Lands

Area in or

near Tribal

Lands

Area in or

near Parks

Area in or

near Federal

Lands

Area in or

near State

Trust Lands

Institution

al Rank

K-1 1% 14% 3% 3% 20%

K-2 0% 13% 4% 1% 19%

K-3 1% 18% 3% 3% 18%

K-4 0% 18% 4% 1% 17%

K-5 1% 18% 3% 3% 19%

K-6 0% 18% 4% 1% 18%

K-7 1% 17% 3% 3% 18%

K-8 0% 18% 4% 1% 17%

L-1 1% 18% 3% 3% 19%

L-2 0% 18% 4% 1% 18%

L-3 1% 18% 3% 3% 18%

L-4 0% 18% 4% 1% 17%

L-5 1% 18% 3% 3% 19%

L-6 0% 18% 4% 1% 18%

L-7 1% 4% 3% 3% 21%

L-8 0% 2% 4% 1% 20%

M-1 1% 4% 3% 3% 22%

M-2 0% 2% 4% 2% 22%

M-3 1% 4% 3% 3% 21%

M-4 0% 2% 4% 1% 20%

M-5 1% 4% 3% 3% 22%

M-6 0% 2% 4% 1% 21%

M-7 1% 4% 3% 3% 21%

M-8 0% 2% 4% 1% 20%

N-1 1% 4% 3% 3% 22%

N-2 0% 2% 4% 1% 22%

N-3 1% 2% 3% 3% 28%

N-4 0% 0% 4% 2% 29%

N-5 1% 2% 3% 3% 29%

N-6 0% 0% 4% 2% 30%

N-7 1% 2% 3% 3% 28%

N-8 0% 0% 4% 2% 28%

P-1 1% 2% 3% 3% 29%

P-2 0% 0% 4% 2% 30%

P-3 1% 2% 3% 3% 28%

P-4 0% 0% 3% 2% 29%

P-5 1% 2% 3% 3% 29%

P-6 0% 0% 3% 2% 30%

P-7 1% 2% 5% 7% 33%
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-34

Table 5D—Institutional Considerations Evaluation by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Alignment

ID

Area in or near

National

Protected Lands

Area in or

near Tribal

Lands

Area in or

near Parks

Area in or

near Federal

Lands

Area in or

near State

Trust Lands

Institution

al Rank

Q-1 0% 0% 5% 6% 34%

Q-3 2% 0% 3% 2% 40%

Q-6 1% 2% 5% 7% 33%

Q-7 0% 0% 5% 6% 34%

R-2 2% 0% 3% 2% 40%

R-4 1% 2% 4% 7% 33%

R-5 0% 0% 5% 6% 34%

R-7 2% 0% 3% 2% 40%

S-1 1% 2% 3% 3% 22%

S-2 1% 2% 3% 3% 22%

S-3 1% 2% 3% 3% 22%

S-4 0% 0% 4% 2% 21%

S-5 0% 0% 4% 2% 21%

S-6 0% 0% 4% 2% 21%

S-7 1% 2% 5% 7% 26%

S-8 1% 2% 5% 7% 26%

T-1 1% 2% 5% 7% 26%

T-2 0% 0% 6% 6% 26%

T-3 0% 0% 6% 6% 26%

T-4 0% 0% 5% 6% 26%

T-5 3% 0% 4% 2% 33%

T-6 3% 0% 4% 2% 32%

T-7 2% 0% 3% 2% 33%
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-35

Table 6A—Length by Alignment Alternative

Continues next page

Alignment ID Total Distance

A-1 175.0 139

A-2 155.7 129

A-3 179.9 140

A-4 160.6 131

A-5 185.7 142

A-6 166.4 138

A-7 184.9 141

A-8 165.6 137

B-1 154.1 124

B-2 134.8 54

B-3 159.0 130

B-4 139.7 65

B-5 164.8 136

B-6 145.4 100

B-7 164.0 135

B-8 144.7 95

C-1 147.4 105

C-2 128.1 35

C-3 153.2 119

C-4 133.9 49

C-5 152.4 114

C-6 133.1 44

C-7 143.2 79

C-8 123.9 14

D-1 148.1 108

D-2 128.8 38

D-3 153.8 123

D-4 134.5 53

D-5 153.1 116

D-6 133.8 46

D-7 145.0 97

D-8 125.7 28

E-1 149.9 110

E-2 130.6 40

E-3 155.6 128

E-4 136.3 61

E-5 154.9 126

E-6 135.6 56

E-7 144.6 94

E-8 125.3 26

Length

Distance Rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-36

Table 6B—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment ID Total Distance

F-1 149.5 109

F-2 130.2 39

F-3 155.3 127

F-4 135.9 58

F-5 154.5 125

F-6 135.2 55

F-7 136.5 62

F-8 117.2 1

G-1 142.3 71

G-2 122.9 8

G-3 141.5 66

G-4 122.2 4

G-5 138.3 64

G-6 119.0 3

G-7 144.1 85

G-8 124.8 19

H-1 143.3 80

H-2 124.0 15

H-3 137.9 63

H-4 118.6 2

H-5 143.7 83

H-6 124.4 18

H-7 142.9 77

H-8 123.6 12

I-1 142.1 70

I-2 122.7 7

I-3 147.8 107

I-4 128.5 37

I-5 147.1 103

I-6 127.8 33

I-7 142.0 69

I-8 122.7 6

J-1 147.8 106

J-2 128.5 36

J-3 147.1 102

J-4 127.7 32

J-5 141.7 67

J-6 122.3 5

J-7 147.4 104

J-8 128.1 34

Length

Distance Rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-37

Table 6C—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Continues next page

Alignment ID Total Distance

K-1 146.7 101

K-2 127.4 31

K-3 145.3 99

K-4 126.0 30

K-5 144.6 93

K-6 125.3 25

K-7 145.3 98

K-8 126.0 29

L-1 144.6 92

L-2 125.3 24

L-3 144.9 96

L-4 125.6 27

L-5 144.2 89

L-6 124.9 21

L-7 143.5 82

L-8 124.1 17

M-1 142.7 76

M-2 123.4 11

M-3 143.4 81

M-4 124.1 16

M-5 142.7 75

M-6 123.4 10

M-7 143.1 78

M-8 123.7 13

N-1 142.3 72

N-2 123.0 9

N-3 153.1 118

N-4 133.8 48

N-5 152.4 113

N-6 133.1 43

N-7 153.1 117

N-8 133.8 47

P-1 152.4 112

P-2 133.1 42

P-3 152.7 115

P-4 133.4 45

P-5 152.0 111

P-6 132.7 41

P-7 161.7 134

Q-1 142.4 74

Length

Distance Rank
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-38

Table 6D—Length by Alignment Alternative (Continued)

Alignment ID Total Distance Distance Rank

Q-3 144.1 87

Q-6 161.7 133

Q-7 142.4 73

R-2 144.1 86

R-4 161.3 132

R-5 142.0 68

R-7 143.7 84

S-1 144.5 91

S-2 144.5 90

S-3 144.1 88

S-4 125.2 23

S-5 125.2 22

S-6 124.8 20

S-7 153.8 122

S-8 153.8 121

T-1 153.4 120

T-2 134.5 52

T-3 134.5 51

T-4 134.1 50

T-5 136.2 60

T-6 136.2 59

T-7 135.8 57

Length
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-39

It should be noted that for purposes of the Level 1 screening, an optimal location within each

community was selected for evaluation purposes. This location was for evaluation purposes only and

does not serve as the precise location of the potential station, which has yet to be determined and will

be assessed in later stages of this study.

Pima County Stations

Figure 1—Marana (Ina Rd) Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-40

Figure 2—Marana (Marana Rd) Station Location

Figure 3—Marana (Tangerine Road) Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-41

Figure 4—Oro Valley Station Location

Figure 5—Raytheon Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-42

Figure 6—Tucson Convention Center Station Location

Figure 7—Tucson Historic Depot Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-43

Figure 8—Tucson International Airport Station Location

Figure 9—University of Arizona Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-44

Figure 10—U of A Research Park Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-45

Pinal County Stations

Figure 11—Apache Junction Station Location

Figure 12—Casa Grande Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-46

Figure 13—Central Arizona College Station Location

Figure 14—Coolidge Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-47

Figure 15—Eloy Station Location

Figure 16—Florence Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-48

Figure 17—Maricopa Station Location

Figure 18—Sacaton Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-49

Figure 19—Superstition Vistas Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-50

Maricopa County Stations

Figure 20—Avondale Station Location

Figure 21—Buckeye Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-51

Figure 22—Downtown Chandler Station Location

Figure 23—S. Price Hi-Tech Corridor Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-52

Figure 24—W. Chandler Blvd Station Location

Figure 25—Wild Horse Pass Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-53

Figure 26—Downtown Gilbert Station Location

Figure 27—Glendale Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-54

Figure 28—Goodyear Station Location

Figure 29—Mesa Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-55

Figure 30—LRT End Station East Station Location

Figure 31—Phoenix Mesa Gateway Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-56

Figure 32—Peoria Station Location

Figure 33—Downtown Phoenix Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-57

Figure 34—Phoenix Sky Harbor Station Location

Figure 35—LRT End Station West Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-58

Figure 36—Queen Creek Station Location

Figure 37—Surprise Station Location
Initial Screening Report: Level One Summary: Appendix One

A-59

Figure 38—Tempe ASU Station Location